Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

GLOSSOP WATER BILL

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL [Lords] (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified)

Bill read the Third time, and passed with Amendments.

CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.

ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Home Produce (Marketing Schemes)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how far it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage producers to carry out schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Acts to develop more efficient and economical methods of marketing home produce if he is now prepared to approve those schemes which have been awaiting Government decision for more than two years; if he will advise producers that he is ready to consider further major schemes; and if he will favourably consider the restoration of powers to existing boards, such as the

Milk Marketing Board, with due regard to the public interest.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he will return their prewar marketing functions to the Agricultural Marketing Boards, particularly the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now say when he expects to be able to give his decision on the marketing scheme for home-grown threshed peas, which has been before his Department for some time.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): It is most certainly the policy of the Government to encourage the promotion of schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Acts that are designed, with proper safeguards for the public interest, to develop more efficient and economical methods of marketing home produce. The three draft marketing schemes submitted to my predecessor and the question of the restoration of powers to existing boards raise policy problems of great importance and some complexity, which I regret to say are taking a long time to solve.
I can only say today that I fully appreciate the concern which is reflected in my hon. Friends' Questions and that I am doing my utmost to find a satisfactory solution of those problems, so that decisions, particularly on the three draft schemes, can be announced at an early date.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a welcome move forward? Now that the main line of policy has been settled, will he give us an assurance that he will lose no time in consulting his Ministerial colleagues and producers' organisations in order to clear up such points of detail as still remain to be resolved?

Sir T. Dugdale: Certainly. I think that in the light of what I have said that is made abundantly clear to the House.

Mr. G. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that his statement in the recent debate was regarded by the industry as facing both ways in that he both supported the restoration of powers to the Milk Marketing Board and detailed a large number of objections to it? Is he aware that if the M.M.B. had these


powers back under the safeguards of the 1949 Act it would be a very valuable adjunct to the livestock policy which both he and we desire? Will he therefore give urgent consideration to the restoration of the powers?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am very glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that we have his support. I assure him that I shall lose no time in trying to come to a final satisfactory solution of this problem.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of uneasiness among farmers about the failure to restore the powers of the Milk Marketing Board? Is he aware that for several years since the war they have been looking for the return of these powers and that, while they are not surprised that they were not restored under the last Government, they look to the present Government to restore them at the earliest possible opportunity?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot add to the answer I have already given.

Mr. Bullard: In the case of the dried pea marketing scheme does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is a very important article of protein food, that the acreage has expanded very greatly in recent years, that it is a very good crop from the point of view of the fertility of the land and that it is most desirable that through a marketing scheme stability of price should be provided because this is a commodity which is not covered by guarantees under the Agriculture Act, 1947?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. Williams: How many of the three schemes referred to have been awaiting Government decision for two years or more?

Sir T. Dugdale: The draft marketing schemes for peas, for herbage seeds, and for apples and pears were submitted in March, 1950, May, 1950, and February, 1951.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what international bodies concerned with foot-and-mouth disease Her Majesty's Government are represented.

Sir T. Dugdale: The International Office of Epizootics, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister satisfied that these organisations are effective to combat the present outbreak in France, Britain and other European countries, and will he initiate joint discussions with the French Government to set up a European authority under F.A.O. to combat foot-and-mouth disease?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am satisfied that these bodies are all very much alive to the problem facing them. I am also satisfied that in recent months they have been coming together and working along parallel lines on the same problem. In reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I will look into that point and will continue to have it under review.

Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that action similar to this was taken by the United States Government with Mexico when they formed a joint commission?

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a special agricultural sub-committee of the Strasbourg Assembly considering European agriculture, to which we are submitting a memorandum? Will the Minister see that that committee receives a memorandum from him, and suggest to them that this is the sort of practical job which they can do, instead of the rather vague things they are doing at the moment?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will certainly consider that proposal.

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Agriculture what further recommendations to combat foot-and-mouth disease he has received from those international bodies on which Her Majesty's Government are represented.

Sir T. Dugdale: No further recommendations have been received since I answered the hon. Member's previous Question on 3rd July, and I would refer him to the reply I then gave.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of foot-and-mouth disease in the county of Somerset have been reported to his Department


during the last three months; and if he will now permit the free movement of livestock in that county.

Sir T. Dugdale: None, Sir. Restrictions were imposed in Somerset and other counties in southern England as a precaution, in view of the risk of introduction of infection from the Continent. The position in France is still serious and the peak of infection in northern France appears to be moving westwards. Consequently, although the position is kept continuously under review, I do not think that the time has yet come to remove the restrictions.

Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very considerable hardship and hindrance which this long protracted restriction is causing to many farmers in their production? Can he say when it will be possible for him to modify or lift the restrictions, at any rate over a limited area?

Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot give any specific date, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it may very well be that the maintenance of the controlled areas is an important reason why Somerset has kept clear. Throughout the country the farmers have co-operated in a wonderful way, and I only hope that they will complete the last lap and thus continue the great progress which has been made.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that he is not hustled into removing restrictions, in view of the potential danger of further outbreaks?

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, under Section 12 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, owners of animals or those having charge of them in an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease, may put up a notice forbidding people to enter premises without permission; whether he is aware that these notices have been widely ignored in spite of his appeals; how many people have been prosecuted for ignoring these notices; and if he will introduce legislation to increase the maximum penalties that can be incurred by those not observing the existing law, and take power to close rights of way in infected areas.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am not aware that the notices are being widely ignored and

I have no information about the number of prosecutions, as they are undertaken by local authorities. The maximum penalty for disregarding such a notice is a fine of £50 for a first offence, which I consider to be adequate. Power already exists, under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order, 1938, to close any footpath or right-of-way in an infected area, and this power is exercised where necessary by my veterinary inspectors.

Major Beamish: Is it the case that rights of way can be closed by law and that if they are closed there can be a prosecution if they are used by the public?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes. Local authorities and the police are responsible for enforcing these regulations.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now announce the terms of reference and membership of the Departmental committee to be appointed to review the measures taken to combat foot-and-mouth disease in this country.

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, but I hope to do so in the fairly near future so that, if the present epidemic abates sufficiently, the committee will be ready to start work in the autumn.

Mr. Hurd: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we may unhappily be faced with another invasion of infection from the Continent in the early autumn and that it is important that this Departmental committee should begin to gather information about the measures which ought to be taken?

Sir T. Dugdale: If we are unfortunate enough to have another epidemic it is certainly not my intention to put off unduly the inquiry.

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Departmental committee which he proposes to set up to inquire into the prevention of foot-and-mouth disease will include representatives from Scotland.

Sir T. Dugdale: It is my intention to consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the selection of at least one member of this committee.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure that one member is enough?

Sir T. Dugdale: I propose to keep down the number of this committee.

Unused Land (Cultivation)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an estimate of the acreage of land not required for other purposes which is at present unused for food production and which could be cultivated.

Sir T. Dugdale: I regret that there are no statistics of the amount of land that is not used for food production nor required for other purposes. We know the total area of land in the kingdom, and can subtract from that the total area of land that is under cultivation; but it is a very difficult matter to calculate and subtract also the area used for every other known purpose, and to say that the residuum is lying idle. Any such conclusion would be subject to a very wide margin of error.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am less interested in the arithmetic of this matter than in the cultivation of idle land? Will he do everything to encourage the use of such land, and, at the same time, consider boosting the use of allotments for the purpose of additional food production?

Sir T. Dugdale: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must not waste land which could be used for growing food, but we must always remember to look at the economic side of this problem. I will look into the point he raised relating to allotments.

Mr. Shinwell: Although financial aspects cannot be entirely ignored, will the Minister be good enough to regard the cost as a secondary consideration in view of the need for food production in this country?

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend look particularly into the question of unused land in the possession of the Air Ministry, much of which is now only growing weeds?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on this problem.

Calf Rearing Subsidy

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now able to announce the details of his proposed calf rearing subsidy plan; and whether colour marked heifers and calves sired by bulls of recognised beef types will be eligible for subsidy.

Sir T. Dugdale: I hope to announce the main details of the proposed scheme, including the types of calves that will be eligible for subsidy, during tomorrow's debate on the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Bill.

Scottish Land Workers (Wages)

Mr. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Agricultural Wages Board for Scotland has rejected a motion for wage increases of 5s. and 4s. per week for men and women workers, respectively, although the Board for England and Wales have recommended approval of the same increases; that similar rejections by the Scottish Board in the past have penalised land workers in Scotland; and if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to the establishment of one wages board for all agricultural workers in Britain.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order and as a matter of interest. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why this Question was permitted to be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture instead of to the Secretary of State for Scotland? There is a Department of Agriculture in Scotland, and surely it is appropriate that this Question should have been addressed to him.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the answer will show it.

Sir T. Dugdale: The answer to the Question is: I am aware of the conclusions reached respectively by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales and that for Scotland on recent applications for increased wages. These Boards have been given statutory powers by Parliament and neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are in any way responsible for their decisions.
I am always happy to consult my right hon. Friend on such matters, but even if


the change suggested by the hon. Member were considered by both of us to be practicable and desirable it would require legislation, of which I can see no prospect at the present time.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scotland is perfectly well able to look after herself in this matter and that the Scottish agricultural worker, than whom there is none better in the world, will certainly have a fair deal?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this has happened in the past it has had to be modified at a later stage, that it would be quite intolerable if increases in the wages of agricultural workers took place in England and not in Scotland, and that the farmers themselves would never dream of allowing such a situation to arise?

Mr. T. Williams: In view of the complications that can arise on a special price review, would not the right hon. Gentleman feel disposed to consult both the trade unions representing the agricultural workers to see whether or not the same machinery should not do the job for all?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think the first consultation must be between myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that I was perfectly satisfied with his original answer and that I am only putting this supplementary because of the intervention of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan)? Is he aware that in spite of what the hon. and gallant Member says, these conflicting decisions have caused agricultural workers in Scotland to lose faith in the present set-up of the wages board, and will he therefore keep in mind the advisability of legislation with a view to taking uniform action?

Rye Production

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what acreage in England and Wales was sown to rye in 1939, 1951 and 1952, respectively; and what amount was harvested in 1939 and 1951.

Sir T. Dugdale: The areas harvested in 1939 and 1951 were respectively 12,900 acres and 50,400 acres, yielding 8,800

tons and 45,600 tons. Further areas of rye were sown in both years for green fodder. I regret that the figures for 1952 are not yet available, but I do not expect them to be materially different from 1951.

Mr. Johnson: Would my right hon. Friend consider encouraging the growing of more rye on land especially suitable for growing that crop, but unsuitable for the growing of wheat, in view of its value as a bread grain, thereby saving imports?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. As a matter of fact, discussions are proceeding between the National Farmers' Union and certain rye users with a view to increasing the production of that crop and thus, possibly, dispensing with imports.

Mr. G. Brown: Does not that answer give point to the request which I have made several times, that the right hon. Gentleman should really get down to a proper production policy for rye?

River Irwell, Bury (Flood Prevention)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Agriculture what flood prevention work has been completed on the River Irwell above Bury during the past three years; what schemes are at present in hand; and what further schemes are contemplated.

Sir T. Dugdale: Works of dredging and channel improvement have been completed by the Mersey River Board at Summerseat, Ramsbottom, Strongstry, Edenfield, Rawtenstall and Stacksteads. Remedial works are now being done at Townsendfold where serious river bank erosion and shoaling was taking place; this includes a deflection wall designed as a result of model experiments.
In addition to general regrading works, the possibility of afforesting parts of the Upper Irwell Valley is being considered in the hope that this might reduce the variation in river discharges which is at present accentuated by the bare and steep nature of the catchment area.

Mr. Greenwood: Does the Minister anticipate that when this work is completed it will prevent any serious flooding?

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think that I of work in these matters. Has he any can go as far as that.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister say how much he thinks the cut in investment for drainage purposes which he recently announced has restricted and delayed this important work?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is an entirely different question. I have answered the Question on this particular problem.

The Wash (Reclamaion)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the amount of agricultural land which has been taken for other purposes in recent years and the fact that this loss of food-producing land is continuing, he will set up a committee of inquiry to examine and report on the possibility and practicability of reclaiming the Wash from the sea.

Sir T. Dugdale: Certain areas adjoining the Wash have already been reclaimed since the war by the owners concerned and further areas are now ripe for reclamation. I am considering what steps can be taken to promote further reclamation and see no advantage in appointing a committee of inquiry for this purpose.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that it has been estimated that in the last two years we have lost good agricultural land to the extent of the size of a small county, and that this process is continuing? A really large-scale scheme in regard to the Wash would add many hundreds of thousands of acres to the already good land of Lincolnshire and Norfolk.

Sir T. Dugdale: From the research which I have made I think the figure which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave is slightly high. I have had the advantage of visiting that area in recent years and I do not think it is true to say that we have lost large areas of land. In point of fact, the area won from the Wash in the past three years totals some 4,500 acres. But I agree that there is more to be done.

Mr. G. Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman have discussions with the Chairman of the Nene Catchment Board about this? That Board have done a lot

of work in these matters. Has he any idea of the extent and the ownership of the land that might be reclaimed?

Sir T. Dugdale: I should not like to tie myself down to a figure, but I think that there is a considerable amount of land which is recoverable. It is a question of recovering it at the right moment. If one recovers it too soon one does not get the greatest benefit from it and if one leaves it for too long one also fails to get the best results.

Dried Grass (Production)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the production of dried grass this season, as compared with last year at the same date.

Sir T. Dugdale: I have no exact returns of production of dried grass this season, but output so far is probably less than at the same date in 1951 owing to the dry weather.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that he is getting an adequate allowance of steel for the industry and does he agree that in the case of the grass-drying programme time is the important factor?

Holdings, East Suffolk

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural holdings there are in East Suffolk under 100 acres, between 100 and 300 acres, and how many above 300 acres, respectively.

Sir T. Dugdale: In June, 1951, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 3,744 holdings in East Suffolk of under 100 acres of crops and grass; 1,225 between 100 and 300 acres; and 263 of 300 acres and over.

Colonel Harrison: Do not the figures given by my right hon. Friend show the wisdom of his action in getting a higher price for the first 400 gallons of milk per month?

Horticultural Tariffs

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now say when he will announce the Government's policy for the horticultural industry; and


whether a decision has been reached in the application by the National Farmers' Union for a review of horticultural tariffs.

Sir T. Dugdale: I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 3rd July and to the right hon. Member on 17th July.

Mr. Brown: Both those answers were extremely unsatisfactory to everybody in the House and to the industry. Since the right hon. Gentleman was going to do so much better than we were doing does not he think that after nine months it is about time that he got round to dealing with this matter?

Sir T. Dugdale: I have nothing further to add today.

Mr. Brown: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Farms (Tillage Orders)

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that all farms in respect of which a direction has been issued under the Tillage (Maximum Pasture Acreage) Order have been inspected this summer: and with what results.

Sir T. Dugdale: No. Sir, I could not say, without special inquiry of all the county committees concerned, but it is my intention that these directions should be followed up

Mr. Brown: What is the point of paying £5 an acre for ploughing up if the right hon. Gentleman is not even willing to find out whether the directions he has given are being carried out?

Sir T. Dugdale: If the right hon. Gentleman will study my reply he will see that it is my intention that these directions should be followed up.

Mr. Brown: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that if he has not even inspected the farms in regard to which he has issued orders?

Sir T. Dugdale: If I may return to the charge I would say that there is at any rate a greater improvement than was

carried out when the right hon. Gentleman was in office.

Mr. Brown: Nothing at all has been done.

Mr. Kenyon: Is not it a fact that the farmers do not have to put in their returns for tillings this year until 31st August? How can they be exempt?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think that is correct.

Soft Fruit Imports

Dr. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what effects he estimates his policy this year, in respect of the import of soft fruits, especially strawberries, has had upon the markets and prices that have been available to the home growers, especially in Hampshire; and how this has compared with the circumstances of last year.

Sir T. Dugdale: The import quotas that have been imposed this year for balance of payments reasons have kept imports of soft fruit, including strawberries, well below last year's levels. This has exercised a steady influence on prices, and although home crops are larger this year than last, prices have not been very different from last year's. I have received no reports of growers being unable to sell soft fruit of a marketable standard. Prices of fruit for processing are higher than was expected earlier in the season and strawberries for processing generally fetched equal or higher prices than last year.

Dr. Bennett: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to pay particular attention to this problem next year and in future years, as a very small margin might make all the difference between economic and uneconomic work?

Mr. T. Williams: As the imports of strawberries are apparently much smaller this year than they were last year, why is it that their price has remained just the same?

Sir T. Dugdale: There is a bigger crop.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the question of plums? Is he aware that in Worcestershire the price offered to growers of plums is not sufficiently large even to


allow them to pick their crops or to pay for the labour of doing so?

Sir T. Dugdale: I realise that the plum crop is likely to be very heavy this year and I think the House and my hon. Friend will recollect that we are trying to help by an additional allocation of sugar.

Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how many more raspberries the Government are likely to get during the year?

Mr. G. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now realise that something better than his miserable answer to Question No. 19 is desirable?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Foreign-caught Fish (Prices)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture what restrictions govern foreign trawlers in regard to the price at which their catches can be sold for human consumption when landed at Hull and Grimsby.

Sir T. Dugdale: There are no Government restrictions on the prices of foreign-caught fish. I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the minimum price agreement operating at Hull and Grimsby. I am informed that foreign trawlers landing at these ports conform to this agreement.

Mr. Dodds: Do I understand that when foreign trawlers come to Grimsby and Hull with catches, unless they can get a certain price, automatically all the fish has to go for fertiliser, fishmeal or to the glue works rather than to the housewife to enable her to have an opportunity of getting cheaper fish?

Sir T. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman can read my answer in HANSARD tomorrow. I should like to remind him that the White Fish Authority have power, under Section 4 (1) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, to act as fish salesmen in certain circumstances. If they thought there was a salesmen's ring which they ought to break in the national interest, it would be open to them to set up in competition with established fish salesmen. So far they are satisfied that there

is no call for such action, because they do not regard the system of minimum prices as being against the national interest.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that a lot of the long-distance trawler owners in Hull and Grimsby, who are well known to be making big profits at present, constitute the authority who have laid down these prices, and nobody else? If not, who did it? Will not the Minister answer? As the Minister refuses to answer a very simple question, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Great Ouse River (Electric Fishing Machine)

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Agriculture what approach has been made to him by the Great Ouse River Catchment Board with regard to an electric fishing machine; what ruling he has given in this matter; and if he will take powers to ban the use of such devices except with his approval.

Sir T. Dugdale: The river boards already have power to determine the instruments which may be used for fishing and the conditions under which they may be used. The Great Ouse River Board have asked my Department to advise them on the drafting of a byelaw to prohibit the use of electric fishing machines except under licence. My Department is advising them as requested, but the byelaw will have to be advertised, and any objections that are received will have to be considered, before it is put to me for confirmation.

Major Beamish: Am I not right in saying that this particular machine—of which the right hon. Gentleman has knowledge—is an extremely technical one, and that its indiscriminate use or its use by poachers might have a very damaging effect upon British rivers? Can I have his assurance that he will take the earliest possible action in this matter?

Sir T. Dugdale: I agree that this machine, which is an extremely interesting one, may be useful for some purposes; but to prevent its abuse its use will clearly have to be subject to very close attention.

White Fish Subsidy (Continuance)

Mr. Duthie: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to ensure that the white fish subsidy is continued after 31st July, 1952, and that a higher rate per stone of fish is paid in view of the increased costs in fishing operations.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture what changes are contemplated in the white fish industry when the subsidy comes to an end in July, 1952.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the white fish subsidy is to be continued beyond July, 1952; and, if so, on what terms and conditions.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Government have decided to continue payment of the white fish subsidy for a further period up to the end of March, 1953, but not to increase the rates generally. Consideration is being given to one or two minor upward adjustments, but the total level of expenditure will be little above that of the last year.

Mr. Duthie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement will give general satisfaction throughout the section of the fishing industry concerned, and also that in some sections of the inshore fishing industry, particularly in the west of England, fishermen are having great difficulty in making ends meet owing to the increase in the cost of gear and in operating costs, and to reduced catches due to the activities of foreign trawlers operating in our own domestic waters?

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this subsidy, quite properly, was announced about two years ago as a temporary measure pending the production by the White Fish Authority of objective reports on reorganisation within the industry? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a report from the Authority which may avoid the necessity for a further continuance of the subsidy?

Sir T. Dugdale: We have just had a report from the White Fish Authority, and I would inform the House that this decision has been taken in consultation with them. They are continuing their

consideration of this very difficult problem.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position, after these arrangements have been made, will mean that we shall then have a minimum price, a subsidy, and no maximum price? Can he also say whether, when the controlled maximum price was removed, that was done on the advice of the experts at that time who said that the result would be a lowering of fish prices generally?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to retail prices. That, of course, is a question for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAVERFORDWEST RURAL COUNCIL (ELECTION AREAS)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Pembrokeshire County Council regarding redistribution of constituencies for the Haverfordwest Rural District Council, in view of the fact that the Parish of St. Elvis has two electors, Cathedral Close, St. Davids, 13 electors, Llanreithan 32 electors and Llangwm 771 electors, each returning one member to the rural district council.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): None, Sir, nor have I any powers in this matter. The division of a rural district into areas for the election of rural district councillors rests with the county council alone.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what happens if one of these two electors in the St. Elvis ward dies, because nobody can be nominated unless he has two people to propose him?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry that my prophetic powers do not extend to forecasting what the county council would do.

Mr. Donnelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider inquiring into the matter with the county council with a view to removing these archaic anomalies?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman can make any suggestions, I shall be glad to consider them and to pass them on.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (NAPALM BOMBING)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are being made to provide against a possible attack in war by napalm bombing upon the civilian population; and how far instruction is being given to civilian defence personnel on this problem.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am advised that the napalm bomb is a tactical weapon which would be very inefficient in use against civilian centres of population. If, nevertheless, it were used against the civilian population of this country, no Civil Defence measures additional to those already contemplated would be needed.

Dr. Stross: Does that mean that the Home Secretary is satisfied that we would have enough centres available for the treatment of the type of burns involved in napalm bombing, and that Civil Defence workers would understand the urgency for immediate removal and treatment?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am never satistied on points on which improvements could obviously be made, and I shall do everything I can to see that the priorities and importances which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are more widely known.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman see any hope at all of returning to the more civilised practice of pre-20th century days when wars were fought between combatants and when non-combatants still had some rights?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE BRIGADE PREMISES (UNION MEETINGS)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases his inspectors have reported

that fire authorities are forbidding the holding of trade union meetings on fire brigade premises; and what action he will take on these reports.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The reports of Her Majesty's inspectors have not mentioned any such cases, and accordingly the second part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that most fire authorities have allowed this for many years to everyone's satisfaction, and if I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman examples of cases where fire authorities have taken it upon themselves to ban the use of fire brigade premises for union meetings will he see what can be done about it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman, from his own experience at the Home Office, will appreciate the position of the Home Secretary in these matters. He can only act when it is a matter likely to affect the efficiency of the fire brigade. But if the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are any steps which I can take informally to improve the position, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement as to the action he is taking in respect to organisations purporting to provide well-paid work in the home on payment of a fee, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Dartford.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member has sent me particulars of three firms. Criminal proceedings have been instituted against persons concerned with two of them, and it would not be proper for me to comment on cases which are pending before the courts. Inquiries are being made into the activities of the third firm.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that information, may I ask whether he is not aware that every week now evidence comes along about these human vultures who are finding ideal conditions for defrauding people because of the rising cost of living and the desperation of some


people to keep out of debt? Will he give an undertaking that this very serious situation has his urgent attention?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have said so, and I repeat it.

Sir E. Keeling: As it appears that circulars offering home employment were sent largely to industrially disabled persons, can the Home Secretary say how these organisation got their names and addresses?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will look into that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Speed Controls

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of police hours per month spent in operating speed traps in the Metropolitan area; and the annual cost of such operations.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In 1951, the average number of han-hours per month spent in operating fixed speed patrols in the Metropolitan Police district was 3,345. No additional police are employed for the purpose of operating these patrols, and the second part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. Shepherd: Obviously there must be a cost involved. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, taking fines into account, a profit is made upon these transactions?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is another question.

Mr. H. Morrison: While we would all agree that speed is important, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in mind that careless and dangerous driving are more relevant to accidents even than speed itself? Can he stimulate the police to be more active in that direction?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Both aspects of the matter warrant most careful attention. I shall devote attention to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Recruitment

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to improve

recruitment for the police forces in the United Kingdom, in view of the shortage of police officers.

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further increases there have been in the police force in England and Wales over the last suitable accounting period; and, in view of the prevalence of serious crime, what steps he is taking to improve recruiting.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Since 30th September, 1951, 4,733 men have joined the police forces in England and Wales, and, after taking account of wastage, the net increase in strength has been over 2,400 men. For the forces generally, the steady, if not spectacular, improvement which followed the introduction of improved rates of pay last August continues. I have no reason to think that appointing authorities are neglecting any reasonable steps in the discharge of their responsibilities. The position is kept under constant review.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the present shortage of police result in the police forces of the country being very much overworked and consequently seriously handicapped in their anti-criminal activities? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the conditions of service in the police are sufficiently attractive to offer good career prospects from the point of view of young men or young women contemplating joining it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, I am satisfied that the police force today offers an excellent career with chances of improvement of position, education and personal outlook, and of rising to the highest appointments. I believe that the best method of recruitment is from the members of the force themselves, who can explain those advantages. My experience after nine months is that we are getting a good type of recruit. I hope that the improvement in the figures will continue.

Mr. Philips Price: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the present rate of recruitment is sufficient to deal with the existing crime situation?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not. I shall not be satisfied until the deficiency is made up, but I am satisfied that we have


made an improvement, and I hope it will continue.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary that he believes the best type of recruitment comes from the police thmselves and their families, does he think it encouraging that the Association of Municipal Corporations' Police Committee have made a statement, which has been published, that whatever steps he takes through his own Police Council to deal with matters on which no agreement has yet been reached, they will not be prepared to give to his Department the assistance to which it is entitled if he takes a certain decision?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that all bodies represented on the Police Council will co-operate to get agreement on the matters outstanding in the Oaksey Report. I should prefer not to make adverse comment on what has been said, but to appeal to them to try on Monday and in the future, to make their co-operation effective.

Mr. Ede: Do I understand from that answer that the Police Council will be meeting on Monday? If so, may I be allowed to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we reciprocate the views he has just expressed?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (MARRIAGE)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances permission to marry is granted to prisoners before expiry of sentence.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The temporary release of a prisoner under escort for the purpose of marriage is authorised only when marriage before the prisoner's discharge would prevent his or her child from being born illegitimate.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that in no other circumstances is a prisoner given permission to marry? If so, will the Home Secretary consider extension of the facility in suitable cases where marriage, for a variety of reasons, ought to take place?

Sir. D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is a very difficult point and would require very

serious consideration before I could go forward. There has been great controversy about the step I have taken, but I believe it is the kindest one and I stand by it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals to restore flogging he is now considering.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The matter is under constant review, but I must not be taken as assenting to the proposition that the case for restoring corporal punishment either for the offences for which it could formerly be awarded or for a wider range of offences has been established or that this controversial matter in one requiring an urgent solution.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Home Secretary either explain or amplify a statement made recently by the Lord Chancellor which seemed to suggest that this matter is under active consideration, thus leading to the assumption that the Government might be changing their mind in the near future?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I stand by the first words of my answer, that the matter is under constant review. The question of dealing with crime must be under constant review. I think the remainder of my answer showed a proper approach.

Sir T. Moore: When is this constant and active review likely to lead to results, especially in view of the growing wave of bestial crimes, which are mounting up every day?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My hon. and gallant Friend makes that statement, but for the good name of the country as a whole it ought to be made clear that the figures of the crimes previously punishable by corporal punishment have not risen but have steadily declined.

Mr. G. Thomas: While appreciating that this and similar problems are bound to be under constant consideration, may I ask whether the Home Secretary is aware that enlightened opinion throughout the country hopes that he will be able to continue the present system, the results of which show a constant improvement?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have taken all points into consideration. I think I have fairly expressed the opinion of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the age groups of those convicted of drunkenness in 1938 and also in the last year for which figures are available.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to help the House by saying what the drinking among teenagers is, compared with 1938?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, but to require the police to give additional offences in age groups would cause a great deal of extra work at present. The furthest I can go is to consider whether we can reasonably ask them to supply this information for 1953 and future years

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (SOVIET COMMUNICATIONS)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that numerous refugees from Soviet-dominated countries, and in particular refugees from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, have recently received communications from the Russian Consulate-General; that the receipt of these communications has caused considerable anxiety; what investigation he has made into the methods used to discover the names and addresses of refugees; and what steps he will take to stop this leakage of confidential information.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am aware that such approaches have been made and have in some cases aroused anxiety. The names and addresses of refugees can be obtained from a number of quite open sources, and inquiries which have been made disclose no evidence of leakage of confidential information.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the intelligence service of the Russian Consulate-General is apparently so good that when refugees move their place of residence, or go to

a new place of employment, they receive communications within a few days of moving? If I send him evidence, will he look further into this question?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that there are sources, as I have said—mail addressed to aliens which is scrutinized in the country of origin; names and addresses provided by repatriates and intending repatriates; and other names in advertisements in emigré newspapers—which I cannot stop. I should also remind him of the answer of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in which an assurance was given that there is no reason for the people concerned to tolerate any interference with their personal liberty.

Oral Answers to Questions — DR. FUCHS (PRISON VISIT APPLICATION)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances Mr. Alan Moorehead applied for permission to visit the prisoners Fuchs and Nunn May; and whether permission was granted.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Mr. Moorehead asked last year for permission to interview Fuchs in prison as he proposed to write a book about him. He was told that his request could not be granted. He did not ask for permission to visit Nunn May in prison, and has not, in fact, visited either of these prisoners.

Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it was quite improper for Mr. Moorehead to have made an approach to the Home Secretary when he was a senior member of the Civil Service without, at the same time, informing his Departmental Minister or the Permanent Secretary that he proposed to take this action?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As that is a hypothetical question, and as it concerns a period before I was in office, I do not think I should answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN EX-PRISONERS (NATURALISATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many German ex-prisoners of war, now settled


permanently in this country, have intimated that they wish to apply for naturalisation; how soon applications from these men will be considered; and how many have been granted naturalisation already for special reasons.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Since July, 1951, when the first enemy prisoners-of-war to be given civilian status had completed five years' residence here as civilians, 78 have applied for naturalisation and 286 have made inquiries about applying. I cannot yet say when it will be possible to consider applications from former prisoners-of-war, but none will be entertained before the beginning of 1954, by which time those Poles who actively served the Allied cause in the war will have had full opportunity of applying. Two former German prisoners-of-war have been granted certificates of naturalisation for special reasons.

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what were those special reasons?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Because of their records in Crown service.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOM EXPLOSION, MONTE BELLO ISLANDS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of further information available, he will order a new inquiry to be made into the dangers to bird and animal life on the Monte Bello islands before the atom bomb explosion is carried out there.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent answer he gave in the House on this question was more picturesque than accurate? Is he also aware that the leading Australian ornithologist has said that there are at least 20 different kinds of wild birds on these islands, and is nothing to be done to prevent this bird life from being blasted out of existence?

The Prime Minister: Every effort will be made to inconvenience them as little as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND WATERWAYS (LIQUOR SALES)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision of the Lord Chief Justice in Green v. Thames Launches Limited, he will amend the law with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor on inland waterways outside the permitted hours.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary think it anomalous that boats on the River Thames should be able to sell alcholic drinks outside the permitted hours? Is he aware that there is general public concern about the recent decision of the Lord Chief Justice?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not aware of the considerable public concern, but if anyone were to proceed to set up a fleet of floating bottle parties on the Thames the answer would be different.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMES OF VIOLENCE

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of stabbing have occurred since the beginning of 1952; how the number compares with previous years; and what were the different kinds of instruments used.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that this information is not available. I have, however, ascertained that during the first six months of this year 27 cases of stabbing were known to the police in the Metropolitan Police district. In most of these cases the weapon used was a knife of one sort or another, but in a few cases a dagger was used, and in one case a bayonet.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Has my right hon and learned Friend taken into consideration the stabs in the back received by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence have been notified to the police in England and Wales during the 12 months ended 31st May; how many offenders were brought before the courts; how many received sentences


of over two years' imprisonment; and what were the corresponding figures for the 12 months ended 31st May, 1937.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This information is not available for the precise periods asked for, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL. REPORT certain statistics for the years 1951 and 1936.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the public alarm at the number of crimes of violence occurring at the present time, and can he state what additional steps may be taken to try to prevent this wave of crimes?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is a question which I have very much, and constantly, in mind.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Home Secretary have a word with the Lord Chief Justice about this, too?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall take into account all expressions of opinion.

Following are the statistics:
During 1951, 7,188 offences of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding, indictable assault, robbery and rape were known to the police in England and Wales. Four thousand two hundred and seventy-four persons were found guilty of such offences, and of those persons convicted at assizes and quarter sessions, 269 were sentenced to preventive detention or to imprisonment or corrective training for more than two years. In 1936, 2,533 such offences were known to the police. One thousand four hundred and twenty-two persons were found guilty of such offences. Sixty-eight of the persons convicted at assizes and quarter sessions were sentenced to penal servitude for three years or more.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAMILY BUDGET INQUIRY

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour when the new family budget inquiry recommended by the Cost of Living Advisory Committee in August, 1951, is to be started.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): A full-scale budget inquiry based on a representative sample of households throughout the country requires very careful and detailed preparation in order to ensure that the results can be accepted as reflecting a true picture of the pattern of consumers' expenditure. Considerable progress has already been made in drawing up the necessary plans, and the date when the

inquiry should be launched is now under consideration by the Cost of Living Advisory Committee.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the fact that the Advisory Committee stress the urgency of this, also in view of the fact that the field work is likely to take about a year and the collation longer, and the importance of the matter, ought not the Minister now to be able to announce the date by which it will start?

Sir W. Monckton: The difficulty is that the views of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee have been sought on this but have not yet been received in a final shape. I have every confidence that it will not be much beyond the end of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES COUNCILS' RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now sign the proposals of the Retail Newsagency, Tobacco, and Confectionery (England and Wales) Wages Council submitted to him on 4th June.

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Labour why there has been delay in signing the proposals of the Retail Food (Scotland) Wages Council which were submitted to him on 22nd May.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour when he intends to sign the proposals of the Laundry (Great Britain) Wages Council which were referred to him on 20th May.

Mr. Padley: asked the Minister of Labour why the proposals of the Hairdressing (Great Britain) Wages Council submitted to him on 1st May have not yet been signed by him.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Minister of Labour why he has not ratified the proposals of the Retail Food (England and Wales) Wages Council submitted to him on 13th May.

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now sign the proposals of the Retail Drapery, Outfitting and Footwear Trades (Great Britain) Wages Council referred to him on 23rd May.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour why he has not ratified the proposals of the Retail Bookselling and Stationery (Great Britain) Wages Council submitted to him on 29th May.

Sir W. Monckton: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a Question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these modest increases, which his action has prevented these workers from receiving, would not have compensated them for the increase in the cost of living between their last increase and today's date? Does he not think that a Government which gives substantial tax concessions to people earning over £1,000 a year, and freezes the wages of workers who are getting less than £6 a week, is a Government which, in the interests of decency and justice, ought to be got rid of as soon as possible?

Sir W. Monckton: The hon. Member will not expect me to agree with his last observation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I can only say that if he does his expectations will not be realised. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I explained to the House on the last occasion the dilemma in which I am placed in having only two courses before me. It is not my fault that, when I reach the conclusion which ultimately I reach, I cannot date it back. That is the fault of the Act which has laid the task upon me and limited my powers.

Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware that to use these £5 a week men to fight inflation is repugnant nonsense to most fair-minded people?

Sir W. Monckton: I am not attempting to do anything of the sort. What I did was this. I thought that it was right to ensure that in these wages councils, as elsewhere, the observations of my right hon. Friend on the serious economic situation should be borne in mind before a decision was reached. That was why I did it.

Mr. Craddock: In view of the serious observations made by the Minister about our economic circumstances, may I ask whether there will be a review of the

allowances granted to the Queen and the £40 million to doctors?

Sir W. Monckton: That is not a question for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR TRANSPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL (APPOINTMENT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

AIR COMMODORE HARVEY: To ask the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he can now announce the reconstitution of the Air Transport Advisory Council.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I will, with permission answer Question No. 111.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has re-appointed Lord Terrington, K.B.E., as Chairman of the Air Transport Advisory Council.
I have appointed the following members:

The Right Hon. Viscount Runciman, O.B.E., A.F.C. (Deputy-Chairman).
Sir John Ure Primrose, D.L., J.P.
Mr. Gerard D'Erlanger, C.B.E.
Mr. J. J. Taylor, O.B.E.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on obtaining the services of these highly qualified gentlemen for a very important task?

Mr. Woodburn: Am I wrong in thinking that on the existing Advisory Council there was a member for Scotland? If not, what is the position regarding Scotland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not wrong, and there is a member from Scotland on the new council. It is the same gentleman—Sir John Primrose.

Mr. Beswick: Have these "highly qualified gentlemen" been given the directive under which they will have to work? If so, when is the House to be told of its terms?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. The House will indeed have the directive, as promised, laid in the Library as soon


as possible. The Council are considering the directive, not with a view to having it altered, but as guidance for their form of procedure. I am very glad indeed that the Council has on it Mr. Taylor, the Secretary and General Manager of the Workers' Travel Association.

Mr. Beswick: In view of what the Minister said last week, and if the directive follows the lines then indicated, does not the Minister now think that the usefulness of the Council has come to an end? Would it not be much better if the Minister himself took full and sole responsibility for the damage he is about to do?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very glad to say that all the members of the Council, including Mr. Taylor, approach their task with the utmost optimism.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. May I first say something about today? After the business of Supply has been completed tonight and the formal Ways and Means Resolutions, we desire to obtain:

Motions to approve:

Draft National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Amendment Regulations.

Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order.

Then to complete the Committee stag and remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, so that the Bill may be sent to another place.

There are also two Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments Orders which we propose to move.

Tomorrow, after the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, we hope that the House will agree to take the two Draft Ploughing Grants Schemes and then proceed with the remainder of the business already announced.

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 28TH JULY—Supply (26th Allotted Day): Report.

Debate on Transport in Scotland.

At 9.30 p.m. the Report stages of all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair.

Second Reading:

Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

TUESDAY, 29TH JULY — Second Reading:

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Debate on the Financial and Economic Situation.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today, and to the Town Development Bill.

Further progress will be made with the Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]—that is, a Consolidation Measure; and, if there is time, Report and Third Reading of the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 30TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages:

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Conclusion of the debate on the Financial and Economic Situation.

THURSDAY, 31sT JULY—Debate on Germany, which will arise on a Government Motion inviting the House to approve the Contractual Arrangements and related matters.

FRIDAY, 1ST AUGUST—The House will meet at 11 o'clock.

The debate on Germany will be continued and brought to a conclusion at 4 o'clock.

As I have previously informed the House, the Government hope to complete all essential business so that the House can adjourn for the Summer Recess before the August Bank Holiday. If we make satisfactory progress and complete today's business and also the business announced for tomorrow, I think it will be possible to adjourn on Friday, 1st August, if agreement can be secured to


a Motion to suspend the Four o'Clock Rule on that day and take the Motion for the Summer Recess after the debate on Germany has been completed.

The House will remember that the Adjournment Motion on the last day before the Recess is the occasion when private Members have a chance to raise a number of topics. The gist of this suggestion is that, instead of having that done on Saturday by sitting specially, we should extend the Friday Sitting for the appropriate number of hours and so conclude the business of the House that night without being very late.

As I say, we would propose that the House do sit until nine o'clock on Friday of next week in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of raising matters in which they are interested, as is customary on the day the House adjourns for a recess. In that event, of course, it would not be necessary to meet on Saturday, 2nd August.

From inquiries which I have been able to make, I think this suggestion will commend itself to the House. I make it in the general interest but, of course, it must depend upon the progress of business and a desire in all quarters of the House to co-operate.

It is proposed that the House should reassemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 14th October.

In addition to the business which I have already announced for next week, it may be necessary—I cannot say yet—to consider further Amendments which may be received from another place to Bills or any other business, but I will inform the House.

May I add two short statements, as I promised to do last week? With regard to iron and steel, a White Paper on the Government proposals will be in the Vote Office on Monday morning. With regard to Korea, a statement will be made in the House on Monday.

Mr. Attlee: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be convenient to take the debate on the Adjournment before the Summer Recess on the Friday rather than on the Saturday. With regard to the business on Tuesday and Wednesday on the financial and economic situation, do the Government propose to put a Motion on the Order Paper? With

regard to the proposed Motion to be debated on Thursday and Friday, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when that Motion will be available. It would be convenient if it could be on the Order Paper in good time.

Mr. Crookshank: There will be a Motion on Germany. As regards the other matter, it is an open question whether there should be a Motion or whether it would be simply a normal debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Perhaps that will be considered.

Mr. Attlee: I realised that there was to be a Motion on the German business. What I asked was when the terms of the Motion were likely to be available to the House.

Mr. Crookshank: I do not think there is any objection to putting it down almost at once, but I will make inquiries. It will certainly be done in good time for the debate.

Mr. Bing: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friends that progress in the various matters which are before us would be greatly assisted if there were not Motions to report progress or for the adjournment of the debate during the course of the consideration of Motions, as that only interrupts the business of the House and results in it being brought to an unduly early conclusion? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to assist hon. Members on their attitude to Motions for the Adjournment, state the date when it is proposed to re-assemble after the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid that on this occasion the hon. and learned Member has delivered himself into my hands. I have already said that the date is 14th October.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the fact that a great many hon. Members will wish to speak on the debate on Germany, he will extend the time on Thursday evening by at least one hour?

Mr. Crookshank: That will certainly be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Bellenger: As there seems to be every indication that in the economic debate an important statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will be


made either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Prime Minister, will it not be possible to have that statement on Tuesday? Otherwise, much of our debate will be more academic than real and, as we shall be rising for the Summer Recess almost immediately afterwards, there will not be an opportunity to focus the attention of this House and of the public on these important issues.

Mr. Crookshank: I think that the House will find that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will be opening the debate, will cover all those matters.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that quite obviously there will not be time to debate the Motion standing in my name, may I ask my right lion. Friend, for the purposes of record, whether he will tell hon. Members opposite that the Government will not set up a committee to inquire into hon. Members' salaries and allowances?

[That in the opinion of this House no action should be taken in response to suggestions that a committee should be set up to examine salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament and that it would be against the national interest for such a course to be taken.]

Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid there is no time for any debate on this Motion. If my hon. Friend wants any information, she must put down a Question.

Miss Ward: On a point of order. I endeavoured to put down a Question so that the right hon. Gentleman might give the information that it is not the intention of the Government to set up a committee, but I was unable to put that on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point of order, the hon. Lady must try some other way of obtaining the information.

Miss Ward: Miss Ward rose—

Mr. Attlee: Mr. Attlee rose—

Mr. Speaker: The point of order persists.

Miss Ward: Further to that point of order. I am trying some other way; that is why I am asking my right hon. Friend whether he will convey the information to the Leader of the Opposition, so that

the House may be officially aware of it, in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has conveyed it to his hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we may assume that, if the need arises, the House will be convened earlier than 14th October in the usual way?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes; under the Standing Orders provision is now made for that.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask the Leader of the House why it is now proposed to issue a White Paper on the steel industry in the last week of the Session? Is he aware that we were promised that a Bill would be presented to this House at the end of January? As the White Paper presumably will contain in broad outline the measures by which the Government propose to deal with the steel industry, it would obviously be desirable and in conformity with all precedent that that should be debated on the first opportunity. Plainly we shall have no opportunity of debating this White Paper, as it will be presented in the last few days of the Session; therefore, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why this is being done?

Sir H. Williams: Before my right hon. Friend replies, may I ask whether the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is accurate in his reference to the last week of the Session? Do I understand that we are proroguing?

Mr. Crookshank: No, we are adjourning. It is quite true that we may not have time to debate it before we rise at the end of next week, but we shall have plenty of time to study it thereafter.

Mr. Strauss: May I ask why this proposal was not put before us two or three months earlier, since the Government have had a great deal of time? Or is its only purpose—and it appears to me to be the only conceivable purpose—that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to appease the extremists on his own back benches during the Summer Recess?

Mr. Osborne: Will it be possible to allow any extra time on Tuesday and


Wednesday on the debate on economic affairs, in the same way as my right hon. Friend has promised it may be possible to give extra time on foreign affairs on Thursday and Friday, in view of the fact that very many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to take part in the debate on economic affairs?

Mr. Crookshank: If representations are made, they can be considered, of course.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to have the debate on the White Paper on steel? I presume that, as in the case of the White Paper on transport, it is submitted to the House with the intention of having a debate on it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and I think that the Leader of the House should declare the intentions of the Government as to a debate.

Mr. Crookshank: I think it would be better if everybody looked at the White Paper first.

Mr. Morrison: Of course, if it is a White Paper to say that the Government do not propose to proceed with this silly idea, there would be a lot to be said for not discussing it, but I did not gather that that was so. If the White Paper is a declaration of policy, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that arrangements must be made for a debate.

Mr. Crookshank: All I suggest is that it might be read and perhaps a question could be put to me again next Thursday.

Mr. L. M. Lever: May I ask the Leader of the House when we are likely to receive the long-awaited and much-needed legislation to assist non-provided schools?

Mr. Crookshank: Not next week.

Mr. Callaghan: Reverting to the business for next week, will the Leader of the House indicate on which nights he will be bringing forward new business for discussion after 10 o'clock and which business we are free to discuss without incurring his displeasure?

Mr. Steele: Can the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the

Scottish Housing Bill? Has this Bill been lost in transit, with the Transport Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: It is awaiting Committee stage.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is it proposed to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Scottish Housing Bill in this Session of Parliament?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, but not next week.

Mr. Callaghan: May I repeat my question? Would it not be for the convenience of Government supporters if the Leader of the House could tell them—if he is not prepared to tell the Opposition—because these things leak out—on which nights he proposes to introduce new business after 10 o'clock? Is it not the case that new discussions entered upon after 10 o'clock at night are likely to lead to prolonged debate, and should they not be started at the normal time of 3.30?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there would be ample time next week to debate the White Paper on steel and a variety of other matters if the Motion for the ratification of the German Contractual Agreement were postponed until after the Summer Recess? Will he consult the Foreign Secretary in order to assure himself that there is really no urgency about this matter at all? Hardly any other countries have yet ratified the agreement. Germany has not yet decided whether she has legal power to ratify it. Why should this House deprive itself of the opportunity of doing urgent business in order to give priority to business which is highly controversial and by no means urgent?

Mr. Crookshank: Of course, my right hon. Friend was consulted before I made this announcement and he took exactly the contrary view.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last November, in Strasbourg, the Home Secretary undertook that the Government would do everything in their power to have the affairs of the Council of Europe discussed in this Parliament and, since the Government have given no time at all during the


year for that discussion, what do they propose to do about this broken undertaking?

Mr. Crookshank: There is no broken undertaking. The hon. Member will remember that we are to meet again on 14th October.

Mr. de Freitas: But the Consultative Assembly meets in Strasbourg on 15th September?

Mr. J. Hudson: In view of the fact that both the Steel Bill and the White Paper might have been discussed, but for the Government's undertakings to the brewers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is going into past history. We are now looking forward to next week, not backwards.

Mr. Hudson: On a point of order. I had only half stated my question. May I beg of you, Sir, that I may complete it, so that you can judge whether or not it is in order. The question is whether, when the Steel Bill or anything else comes to be discussed in this House, there are not further commitments to the brewers to be taken into account by the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing about the brewers in the statement of business for next week.

Mr. Bevan: As the additional dollar cost of maintaining British troops on the Continent of Europe may be very high after ratification, and as this will have a close bearing upon the economic situation, and especially upon the balance of payments, shall we be told on Tuesday what is the figure?

Mr. Crookshank: I really cannot say now what exactly my right hon. Friend is going to say. I cannot anticipate the date which I have announced.

Mr. Bevan: I am asking the question now so that the right hon. Gentleman may be aware of it, because quite recently, in answer to a Question of mine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this would receive the active consideration of the Foreign Secretary; and as the figure may be anything from £100 million to £140 million a year, it has a

direct bearing on the balance of payments problem.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be very much obliged to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) for reminding him of these points.

Mr. Jay: Can the Leader of the House now tell us if the Government have no intention of introducing the Steel Bill this Session, why this was announced in the King's Speech last October?

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Deer Poaching (Scotland) Bill left another place four months ago and has not been heard of since, can the Leader of the House tell us what has happened, and whether the Government are abandoning this Measure, along with many of the others on the list as it now stands?

Mr. Crookshank: I understand that a Committee has been set up to consider the close season, which is very much allied to this problem.

Mr. Rankin: Are we to understand, then, that the opposition to the Bill is so great that the Government are reconsidering the matter?

Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that the Gracious Speech from the Throne is still valid at the end of the Session, is it proposed to carry it forward to the new Session, or shall we have a new Speech repeating the promises made then?

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNORS)

The Prime Minister: With your permission. Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement concerning the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The Chairman and Governors who were in office when the new Charter was granted on 1st July consented to continue in office until a new Board could be appointed. The Government consider that the new Board should take office at an early date, and the Queen has been pleased to approve the following appointments as from 1st August:
Sir Alexander Cadogan, to be Chairman until 30th June, 1957.


Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder, who is the present Vice-Chairman, to continue in that office until 30th June, 1954.
Lord Clydesmuir, who is at present a Governor, to be re-appointed until 30th June, 1955, and to be designated National Governor for Scotland.
Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor to be National Governor for Wales until 30th June, 1957.
Sir Harry Mulholland to be National Governor for Northern Ireland until 30th June, 1957.
Professor Barbara Wootton to be reappointed Governor until 30th June, 1954.
Mr. Stedeford to be re-appointed Governor until 30th June, 1955.
Sir Philip Morris and Lady Rhys-Williams to be Governors until 30th June, 1956.

Name and Office
Date of first appointment
Date of expiry of appointment
Approximate total term of office


The Rt. Hon. Sir Alexander Cadogan, Chairman
August 1, 1952
June 30, 1957
5 years


Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder, Vice Chairman
January 1, 1950
June 30, 1954
4½ years


The Rt. Hon. Lord Clydesmuir, National Governor, Scotland
January 1, 1950
June 30, 1955
5½ years


The Rt. Hon. Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, National Governor, Wales
August 1, 1952
June 30, 1957
5 years


The Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Mulholland, National Governor, Northern Ireland
August 1, 1952
June 30, 1957
5 years


Professor Barbara Wootton
January 1, 1950
June 30, 1954
4½ years


Mr. I. A. R. Stedeford
January 1, 1951
June 30, 1955
4½ years


Sir Philip Morris
August 1, 1952
June 30, 1956
4 years


Lady Rhys-Williams
August 1, 1952
June 30, 1956
4 years

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I think I might say with your indulgence, and that of the House, I wish to make another statement.
As the House is aware, we have been considering the scope of a Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs in the light of the report of the Committee presided over by Lord Catto which investigated the economic and financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Report of the Catto Committee has now been published and copies are available in the Vote Office today. We are much indebted to Lord Catto and his colleagues for the comprehensive and thorough analysis they have made of the matters referred to them.
The Government accept the Committee's conclusion that a separate return

In accordance with previous practice the periods of appointment have been varied so that all the Governors will not retire together. I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House will, I am sure, wish to join me in thanking Lord Simon of Wythenshawe and his retiring colleagues for their services.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Prime Minister tell us the average age of the Governors he has now appointed, and the age of the Chairman?

The Prime Minister: It had not occurred to me to look at it from that point of view.

Following are the details:

for Scotland of Government revenue and expenditure can be prepared on lines which the Committee recommend and it is hoped to present such a return next year. The Government also agree with the Committee's view that, for reasons fully explained in the Report, it is impracticable to make a return of Scotland's share of the external trade of the United Kingdom or of Scotland's balance of payments.

In these circumstances, the Govern-have recommended to The Queen, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve, the appointment of a Royal Commission. Its terms of reference are:
To review with reference to the financial economic, administrative and other considerations involved, the arrangements for exercising the functions of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Scotland, and to report.

The Earl of Balfour has agreed to act as Chairman of the Commission. I will circulate the names of the other members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the thanks due to Lord Catto for having undertaken this rather difficult task in view of the atmosphere at the time that he was appointed? We cannot, of course, make any comment on the Report until we see it. But it is interesting to note, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he discovered the limitations there must be to this disentanglement of Scottish and English affairs. We on this side of the House wish the Royal Commission every success in attempting to resolve the task which has been laid upon it. We are glad to notice that the terms of reference are at least on a practical basis, and something which can be tackled and will probably give some result.
We hope that as a result of their work, any doubts there may be about the possibility of Scotland exercising her full, characteristic method of contributing to her own welfare and that of the Commonwealth will be removed, and that our relations will move on to a smoother and less controversial plane.

The Prime Minister: I am glad to note the tone and spirit of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is not it rather an unusual course to take, in a statement of this kind, for the Prime Minister to give us the name of the Chairman of the proposed Commission and then to tell us that we shall be able to read the names of the other members of the Commission in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Can we not have those names now?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that. That course is quite usual.

Mr. C. Davies: While congratulating Scotland on receiving this proper and necessary recognition, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will extend the same privilege to the Principality of Wales and ask the Catto Committee whether they will continue their investigation into the Principality, so that we also may have the privilege of a Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: It is by no means certain what the verdict will be. Had not my right hon. and learned Friend—if I may call him so—better await the

outcome of these investigations and the report of this Royal Commission before he necessarily commits the Principality of Wales to a similar investigation?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Might I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the promptitude of the action of the Government in accepting the Report of the Catto Committee and forthwith appointing a Royal Commission? Might I ask, first, when he thinks that it will be possible for the Commission to meet; do I understand that the Commission is now completed and will be able to meet at an early date? Secondly, will he say whether it will be possible for this House to debate the Report of the Catto Committee at an early date, possibly during the present Session?

The Prime Minister: It is in accordance with custom that statements about Royal Commissions should be made by the head of the Government. The Commission have to be directly approved by the Crown. I will not venture to carry on the detail of the discussion. With the permission of the House, I will hand the matters touched upon by my right hon. and gallant Friend over to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can I address my questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): It is hoped that the Commission will meet this Autumn and proceed with its work. As regards the debate, we have accepted the Report of Lord Catto's Committee. That having been done, I do not think that the House would think it necessary to debate it. It is available in the Vote Office for the perusal of hon. Members. The Royal Commission is proceeding with the next step and that, of course, is a question for discussion.

Mr. Wheatley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference are designed to exclude consideration of legislative devolution? Secondly, is not he aware that both sides of the House were most anxious to debate the Report of the Catto Committee?

Mr. Stuart: As to the debate, I must leave that for the usual channels. Legislative devolution is considered to be a


matter for Parliament. The Royal Commission will deal with administrative devolution.

Mr. Wheatley: Does that answer mean that the Royal Commission is being excluded from considering questions of legislative devolution?

Mr. Stuart: The Royal Commission can ask for evidence, or receive evidence from any quarter, but the question of whether there should be Parliamentary or political devolution is, I think, a matter for Parliament itself.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the Secretary of State realise that hon. Members would have been more able to appreciate and to approve or pronounce upon in any way the Royal Commission and the terms of reference if they had first had an opportunity of studying the Report which he says is now in the Vote Office? Does not he appreciate that we should have been able to study the Report and perhaps to have had a debate which may have given some guidance to the Government in the setting up of a Royal Commission?

Mr. Stuart: There was not much time. It depends, of course, upon the exact date when the House rises for the Recess; but we are accepting the Report of the Catto Committee, and therefore, I hoped that there would not be great argument about that. The time factor made it very difficult—we considered this matter very carefully—to make, say, a week's interval between the two.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I thought I heard you call my name, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I did not call the hon. Member's name. The hour is getting late. It is my duty to press on.

Membership of the Commission is as follows:

Chairman:

The Earl of Balfour

Members:

Mrs. J. Campbell, C.B.E.
Sir Hugh Chance
The Very Rev. J. Hutchison Cockburn, D.D.
Lady Dollan
Mr. Duncan Fraser, C.B.E.
Sir Thomas Gardiner. G.B.E., K.C.B., LL.D.
Sir William Gavin, C.B.E.
Mr. G. W. Guillebaud, C.B.E.
Bailie W. P. McGinniss, O.B.E.
Mr. J. McNaughton, C.B.E.
Mr. J. Spencer Muirhead, D.S.O., M.C., T.D.
Sir A. Murray Stephen, M.C.
Major John Stirling of Fairburn, M.B.E.
Bailie F. H. N. Walker.

Scottish Home Department:

Secretary of the Commission: Mr. W. G. Pottinger.
Assistant Secretary: Mr. A. T. F. Ogilvie.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day, business other than the business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.
Proceedings on Government business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £10,391,933, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Transport in Scotland for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:—

Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class I, Vote 26, Scottish Home Department
1,062,933


Class VI, Vote 14, Ministry of Transport
1,493,000


Class VI, Vote 17, Ministry of Civil Aviation
7,836,000


Total
£10,391,933

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,820,857, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Central African Federation for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:—

Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class II, Vote 8, Colonial Office
652,635


Class II, Vote 5, Commonwealth Relations Office
1,168,222


Total
£1,820,857

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Behind the matter we are to discuss today lies one of the central problems of our generation, which will certainly be with us throughout this generation, namely, the question of colour and of racial relations. In many parts of the world colour conflict has transcended class division as the motive force of politics and history. I think that the claim of the Soviet Union to be able to solve problems of colour is now much more potent than her claim to solve social and economic problems in the world.
Britain, because of its position in Central and East Africa, will have a most important role to play in the solution of this extremely grave problem of colour and racial relations. We shall have to contribute to the solution of this problem as we did to the solution of the problem of nationalism in India and as we are doing to the problem of nationalism in West Africa. But the problem of multiracial societies such as those with which we are dealing this afternoon is really much more crucial than the problem of nationalism that we had to deal with in Asia.
We are dealing with communities that are different in almost every way except that they are resident, settled and permanent communities in the area in which they live. We must start on the basis that all these communities are African communities, that there are white Africans as well as black Africans, and that they not only have to learn to live together but—what is really more difficult—they have to live together during this transition period of adjustment from an automatic European superiority to one of real partnership and equality between the races.
I hope that none of us in this debate will be arrogant and assume that the solutions that we advocate are obviously and automatically the right ones. We are in the sort of position in which any decision that we take as a country and as a House—and, indeed, if we take no decision at all—will have very grave and serious consequences. What we have to do is to find the best, on balance, of the solutions that will open out the best prospects of a settlement of this problem.
I have always been in favour of federation for Central Africa. I think that, in the situation with which we are faced there, it opens the way for the best solution. It is in the interest both of our own country and of the African countries. I should like to mention one or two reasons why I hold that view.
First, there is the economic one, into the details of which I do not propose to go, and which is that there must be development and capital investment. I want to deal with the point that is sometimes made that capital investment can be equally easily done without federation. I do not think that is a true proposition, because I think that the investors from


whom the capital has to come certainly pay attention to the stability and political unity of the country in which they invest. Without federation, there would not be political stability and certainty in this area.
Secondly, it is essential, if the resources of this area are to be properly developed, that they should be under a single political authority, and that is particularly true of the copper of the Copper Belt and the coal of Wankie. It is everywhere admitted that these two great resources which must be exploited can never be well run under two separate Governments, and that we shall never solve the problem of getting the coal to the Copper Belt unless a single political authority controls both.
This is a matter in which our own interests and the interests of the Africans coincide. It is clearly in our own interests, to get rid of dollar dependence and so forth, that the capital resources of the area should be developed, and it is equally in the Africans' interests that they should be developed, because there cannot be progress and social welfare unless the wealth of the territories is exploited.
I think there are very good social reasons too, because the social development of all the communities, including the African, cannot be separated from the problem of scale. I want here to refer to the problem of higher education for Africa. Some people have taken the view that it is wrong that this should be included in the list of federal powers, but, as I see it, it is not possible to develop higher education for Africans unless it is done on a federal scale. One of the important arguments in favour of federation is that it will permit of the proper development of institutions for the higher education of Africans which cannot be possible in any other way.
It came as a great shock to me to discover that, if an African in any of our territories in Africa—the Colonies, the High Commission Territories and Southern Rhodesia—wanted higher education, he had to go to the Union of South Africa. This was brought home very forcibly to me and to my right hon. Friend when 'South Africa placed a ban upon the entry of Africans from outside territories to her schools and universities, and this

caused very great concern and great alarm among Africans in all our territories in South Africa.
However, South Africa reconsidered this ban and lifted it. At the time, I was making a tour of the High Commission Territories, and was able to announce that the South African Government had lifted the ban, and the effect was very impressive. The same people, whom I had met at great assemblies, and who were urging very strongly that we must in no circumstances transfer the territories to the Union, welcomed and cheered the announcement that the Union Government had lifted the ban on Africans from outside. That brought home to me very gravely and sharply the problem which we had to face. The ban has been lifted for only three years by the Union Government, and, if it were re-imposed, we should be in the position of having to find alternative means of providing higher education for Africans in our territories.
When I was there I was greatly discouraged to see that we had not managed to develop in Central Africa institutions for higher education for Africans, and I came back determined to do what I could to see that we got institutions for the higher education of Africans in Central Africa. It cannot be done by any one of these territories by itself. It is one of the things that can be done only by the pooling of resources—tax resources, and all the rest—and it certainly is important for the social and political advancement of Africans that there should be proper provision for higher education.
Thirdly, there are very good political reasons in favour of the principle of federation. We must not assume that the British connection in Central Africa is permanent, inviolable or divinely ordained. The simple fact is that our influence in Central Africa is in potential danger, and if we do nothing about it it will come into increasing danger.
The essence of the trouble is not, as is sometimes said, the question of immigration from the south, which is very important and can only be dealt with on the basis of federation, but the question of the future of Southern Rhodesia. Some people say that Southern Rhodesia has tried to threaten or blackmail us, when there is a simple explanation about it.
Southern Rhodesia is not strong enough to stand alone. It must, in the end, go north or south. There is no third alternative against Southern Rhodesia in the end going north or south, if left to stand on its own. This might happen quickly if there were an economic crisis; if not, the development might be long postponed, but, in the end, I think one can say from the start that Southern Rhodesia must go either north or south, and that, if it does not go north, it will go south.
Some people say that that will make no real difference, that there is no real difference between native policy in Southern Rhodesia and native policy in the Union, but this is a situation which we must frankly face. To those who say that, I would put two points. One is that they should ask any African in Southern Rhodesia if he is indifferent on the question whether Southern Rhodesia becomes part of the Union or not, because, if there is no difference in the native policy of the two countries, it makes no difference whether they are united or not. I asked many Africans, both collectively and individually, who had strong views on federation, and every one said that he was by no means indifferent, on grounds of either politics or history, to the country being incorporated in the Union of South Africa.
The second point is that I ask my hon. Friends who take this view to consider what would happen if the border of South Africa were to extend to the Zambesi. It would have a very great effect on the fate of British Central Africa and bring the whole of our influence in this area into jeopardy. I take the view that the maintenance of British influence in Central Africa is just as much in the interests of the Africans as it is in our own interests.
Certainly, one fact that is beyond dispute is that all Africans in the territories concerned are in favour of maintaining the British connection. That was made clear in the communiqué that was issued after the Victoria Falls Conference, when the whole Conference, including the Africans, asserted the importance of maintaining the British connection. Indeed, the objections made by Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to federation have been made on the ground of the need to preserve

the British connection, and there is no question about the Africans being in favour of maintaining it.
However, it is not enough to say that we are in favour of maintaining it; in the circumstances, it is necessary to do what is required to preserve it. That is really the fundamental reason why I am in favour of federation. I do not think we can preserve the British connection without federation, for Southern Rhodesia cannot stand alone, but must go either north or south.
Then we come to two rather difficult problems, one concerning the constitution, which is described in the White Paper, and the other concerned with African opinion about these proposals. On the constitutional issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) hopes to make a few observations later and to express our views on this matter, to which we attach very great importance. I will therefore leave that question to him, and I want to make only one or two points.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn to page 23 of the White Paper, paragraph 5 (1). There are two points I want to put to him. Both are about the African Affairs Board. How far is it intended that the African Affairs Board should play a positive and constructive rôle and not merely have negative and restrictive functions? The word used is "representations," which certainly could mean constructive as well as purely negative functions. On the other hand, it could have a rather negative meaning. I am sure it is intended that the Board should have constructive functions, and I hope that will be made clear in any document which is finally produced.
I turn to the more important point of the question of their influence upon executive action. The paragraph reads:
It will be the general function of the Board to make … such representations in relation to any matter within the legislative or executive authority of the Federation.
But when I read the rest of the Paper, I find no mechanism by which they can operate at all in the executive field. There is a good deal of detail about what they can do in the legislative field, but no mention at all of how they would operate in the executive field. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give some information about that—whether


and how, for instance, the Board would have pre-knowledge of executive action, because without some pre-knowledge it is obviously impossible to exercise the functions in the field of the executive.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would now turn to page 25, paragraph 5 (4, a). This is a point to which I attach great importance. It says that the Governor-General may in his simple discretion over-ride the recommendation of the African Affairs Board. I quite see that in certain emergencies that may have to be done temporarily, and provision is made for that in another clause, but here it says that he can ignore the African Affairs Board if he is satisfied that the Measure is not a differentiating Measure. After all the elaborate procedure set up, the Governor-General can, in his own discretion, simply ignore the recommendations of the Board. That would bring into doubt the whole of the elaborate apparatus set up to enable the Board to protect African interests.
The Board is, after all, a responsible body appointed by the Governors and the Governor-General, and it must be assumed that it will not make frivolous recommendations; but that can be the only possible assumption underlying this clause. It seems to me that this is something which must be altered, because, if it is not, everybody will have doubt about the powers of the Board, if they can be overturned by the Governor-General in his own discretion. Incidentally, I am not quite clear whether that discretion would be used on the advice of Ministers of on his own motion. I hope the situation will not arise, because I hope the provision will be changed.
We come to an even graver matter—the question of the provision for amendment to the constitution. Here we are in a very difficult position. On the one hand, we all agree that we want the constitution to prevent undesirable amendments which would change federation into amalgamation or change the guaranteed Protectorate status of the Northern Territories or change the land rights of the Africans. We are all agreed that we want to make it impossible to introduce such undesirable changes, and from that point of view the provisions are very good, because they make it extremely difficult, and cer-

tainly impossible without our consent, to make that sort of change.
At the same time, of course, it makes it impossible to introduce desirable changes. Here we are in a dilemma. We do not wish to make it impossible to make some desirable changes, especially some to which I and my right hon. Friends attach very great importance, and there must not be, as a result of any action we take here, a shutting down of the scope and hope of African political advancement. There must be African political advancement as a result of what we are doing if the word "partnership" is not to be just a word but is to have some meaning.
There is the further point to which I attach much importance—that it would be wrong if, as a result of this constitution, we brought to an end all chance of the initiative coming from the United Kingdom Government in the affairs of this area. This is a developing problem in its whole essence and it cannot be solved in a minute. We must therefore not petrify it, as I think the constitution does by its provision for amendment.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that one way out of this problem—because we certainly do not want to make it easy to make undesirable amendments—might be to provide in the constitution for a review of the constitution within five or 10 years, or some suitable time. I do not think it should be an exact time, but should be some sort of time like that, and it should be a review in which all Governments, including Her Majesty's Government, take a full part in the discussion. We can take the initiative and the possibilities of further advance and political development in the federal constitution can then be examined.
There is another question on amendments. I am also worried about the prospects of a political advance of Africans in the federal field. By maintaining the Protectorate status, we have provided that their advance in the territorial field, in the two Northern Territories, shall continue and that the right hon. Gentleman and his successors will be responsible for it. But it is also very important that there should be political development and advance for Africans in the Federal field.
If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to pages 14 and 15 he will find, as he knows


already, of course, that the Federal Assembly and nobody else has complete control over all matters of election to the Federal Assembly. He will find, further, on page 15 that any amendment or change in the qualification or disqualification for voters needs a two-thirds majority of the Federal Assembly—that is, a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Assembly, not just a two-thirds majority of those present. That is the most difficult form of two-thirds majority which one can have.
It is not very likely that this Federal Assembly will allow any rapid or considerable political advance, if any advance at all, for Africans in the elections to the Assembly, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman very strongly that the control over the methods of election—who should vote and things of that sort—should be transferred from the Federal Assembly to the territories so that Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia should each be responsible for determining who votes and what the qualifications are. There can then be a steady advance, certainly in the territories for which the Colonial Office will remain responsible, of Africans in full participation in elections, which will then be reflected in the Federal Assembly. That, of course, is the model of the United States, which is a classic of a written constitution of this sort. There, the centre determines the numbers who shall be returned from each State, but each State determines the electoral method—and there is a great variety of electoral methods.
Incidentally, from page 16, paragraph 5 (1) I understand that Nyasaland could keep this power if they merely failed to make an appointed day. The power of controlling methods of election and qualifications to vote starts in the Legislative Council of Nyasaland, and until they themselves appoint a day for that transfer to the Federal Assembly the power will remain with them; and by failing to appoint a day, Nyasaland could keep the power. Thus we already could have one territory out of the three having this power in its own hands. I think it would be a very good idea if Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia were given the same power, which they need not transfer to the Federal Assembly unless they make an appointed day.
I come to the question of African opinion, which is the crux of the whole matter. Some of us do not like federation, but nearly all agree with it in principle, and those who agree in principle have to face the problem of African opinion. Our objective is, of course, to seek federation with African consent. That can be our only objective.
It is not only morally right and all the rest, but it is of course necessary to the working of the constitution that there shall be full co-operation of all the communities concerned, and not only the African. This objective of seeking federation with African consent is one to which we attach the very greatest importance. It is of the utmost importance to win African consent to the general principle and, indeed, the details of federation, and I must say that the Government have shown themselves to be very clumsy in the handling of these matters as regards the impact upon African opinion. They have not done things that will make it more likely that Africans will consent, but have done a number of things that will make it less likely.
That is one of the complaints against the Government—the failure to follow up the partnership talks in Northern Rhodesia after the conference is a case in point. There was certainly some slowing up of the plan which I and my right hon. Friend left behind us at the Victoria Falls Conference. Care is taken to keep the thing within the limits of propriety, but there is not equal care about urgency. There was here in London or elsewhere a slowing up of plans.
Then there was the change of date of the next conference without consulting all the parties to the earlier conference, which we criticised at the time. That is the change from July back to April. It is bound to give an impression of rush and hurry and of disregard of African susceptibilities, and it shows an ignorance of the very important psychological factors involved.
We are not only dealing with economic and constitutional factors but with psychological factors of great importance—fears, doubts, some of them irrational but nevertheless very real. All these psychological factors have to be borne in mind. I stress them all the more because I urge the Government to make


one more great effort to win African consent to federation.
In that connection, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something of the time-table which the Government have in mind, because it is in terms of the timetable that in the past the Government seem to have been rather clumsy in their actions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that it has been decided to slow up the time-table somewhat and to put off the conference in October about which he told us earlier in the House. There has been a big debate on the matter in another place and the Government have bad plenty of time to consider the very strong representations made for delay on all sides during that debate. I hope that the Minister can announce a substantial postponement of the date of the proposed October conference.
It will give more time to consult African opinion and to do something to correct the impression which the Government have created by over-rushing. I also suggest to the Secretary of State that he should go out and consult the opinion of all communities on the spot. We are very glad that the Minister of State is going out. He will be able to report to his colleagues. But this is so important for the area concerned and for our country that it is essential that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State should go out to see things on the spot and make up their minds, to consult all the communities there and to obtain an impression of the real situation.
We have a very great deal at stake, and it would show a proper regard for the issues if the Secretary of State went out. I think that it is a necessary step, and I urge that both Ministers should go. I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an absolute guarantee that we will have another debate in the House before Parliament is committed to any final action on this question. Parliament is the final authority. We have not yet got all the facts before us. African opinion is now being consulted, and it is right that at this stage we should postpone a decision. But we can only agree to postpone the decision if we have an absolute and categorical assurance that there will be no commitment of the House of Commons before we have another debate on

this matter. We regard that as of the utmost importance.
We all want to secure federation with the consent of all communities, including, of course, the Africans. I urge upon the Government to subordinate all their plans and all their measures and all the things they say and do to that end. I urge them to remember that it is not enough to get the policy right and that the attitude and approach matters a great deal in this connection.
We are dealing with fears and suspicions, and fears and suspicions take account of gestures and attitudes as well as and perhaps more than policies and constitutional proposals. We regard this project of Central African federation as one of the greatest possible importance, and I urge the Government to tell us that they are going to make one further great effort to obtain the consent which is necessary to make this project work.

4.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): This debate on the vexed subject of Central African federation differs somewhat from the other two which we have had recently because, for the first time, we have the draft constitution in front of us. I do not want to detain the Committee for very long, but I want to try and answer the points which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has raised in a very cogent speech.
Those questions are, first, with regard to the time-table and, secondly, with regard to a debate in the House. Then I should like to discuss shortly the points where the draft constitution differs from the officials' scheme. When I am discussing the differences I shall be able to take up the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised about the constitution.
The date of the conference has been under discussion for some weeks and telegrams have been passing between the other Governments who will be attending. Bradshaw and the A.B.C., so to speak, are unfortunately a large part of any such discussions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and it has been difficult to find a date that did not conflict with the commitments of Ministers here, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors and political leaders


of the territories. But I think the outcome of this exchange will be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman, as it is to this side of the Committee, because we have decided to hold the conference in January instead of in October.
This has been settled not only because of the logistical difficulties, if I may so call them, but also because of the reports of the three commissions on finance, the judiciary and the public service which, as Lord Hailey said in another place, cover very vital matters and will require a very long period of study. I hope that the commissions will be able to report in September. It is clear that it would not have left long enough time for consideration of the reports if the conference had been held in the first week of October. Be that as it may, I think that the change of date will be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman.
I must turn aside for one moment to the only critical remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made, which were to the effect of how clumsy the Government have been in handling African opinion. These charges are entirely unfounded. What has happened? The final communiqué of the Victoria Falls Conference said that it was hoped that a conference would take place about the middle of next year—that is this year. That would mean to most people about June of this year, and that was to have been, as I read the matter, the decisive conference.
What we have done is to have two conferences—one which took place in April this year at which for the first time there was put in front of African opinion a document on which they could pass judgment; and then, seven months later, we are going to have a final conference to decide whether action should be taken or not. I suggest, with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that the charges of precipitateness and clumsiness fall to the ground.

Mr. James Griffiths: I do not want to discuss this matter further, but our complaint relates not to the question of changing the dates of the conference, but doing it without consulting the Africans and the people concerned.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is another question. Both of these charges, in any fair review of the matter, fall to the ground. In the first place, to delay the final conference by seven months hardly justifies

a charge of haste. That is seven months after the date specified by the previous Government. I should think the right hon. Gentleman would also agree that it is wise to consult African opinion on something that is known, rather than on something that is not known. That destroys the charge of clumsiness. I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman wants to try to reverse these propositions.
I shall now come to the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman asked from me, that there would be an opportunity for a further debate before any final decision was made after the conference. I will give that assurance in unequivocal terms. Such an opportunity will be afforded. So much for the timetable and the debate in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on the constitutional instrument itself which, as I said, was before the House for the first time. I want to discuss quite shortly those respects—two of them are major respects—in which the new draft differs from the scheme formulated by the officials. But before I get to that point I must say a word about African opinion. I hope I shall not be guilty of saying that there is no such thing as African opinion. Of course there is. But it is not always easy to ascertain it, and any out-of-hand summary of African opinion at any one time must be subject to a great many reservations.
In this country, even with universal suffrage and a high degree of literacy, public opinion can be obtained, or so we think, once every two, three or four years; but even then it is the custom—nay, it is the traditional weapon of the Opposition a few weeks after a General Election—to say that the electorate did not know what they were voting about or whom they were voting for. This particular argument may not impress hardened politicians, among whom I number myself, but we know that it is the traditional weapon of the Opposition in the party battle across the Floor of the House. It does not seem long ago when I heard some hon. Members opposite adumbrating this particular argument.
If with our electoral system, with universal suffrage and with nearly universal literacy, it is often urged that mere figures do not represent the


mercurial nature of public opinion, how much more dangerous it is to pronounce these generalisations in the most dogmatic terms, and not infrequently in the House, such as "African opinion is solidly opposed to this or that, or the other."
One or two reports have come in on African opinion since the draft constitution was announced, to which I must refer. They come from the Government officials who have been told to explain the matter and obtain opinion. Not surprisingly to most of us, they report that large numbers of the population are completely disinterested in the question altogether. They simply say that they are not concerned. Other Africans say that they would be content if the Colonial Office told them straight out what they thought was best for them and they would then follow it with confidence. It is, on the other hand, true that such African opinion as has so far been given to the officially representive bodies is opposed to federation.
I want to deal with the matter perfectly fairly. Our information is that a number of individual Africans are not opposed to the scheme but are not prepared to say so. There is evidence that Congress and other anti-federation leaders have until recently been doing their utmost to prevent Africans from even studying the proposals and would like administrative officers—there has been propaganda about this—to be prevented from explaining. We are not satisfied—I use these words with every sense of responsibility—that there has not even been considerable intimidation.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Is there any evidence?

Mr. Lyttelton: I said that with a due sense of responsibility. That statement is based upon reports which I have had from high officials in those territories.

Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that with a due sense of responsibility, but is it not serious to imply that there has been intimidation, without giving evidence? Surely that is a very serious matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to quote from telegrams or lay them on the Table. I think the hon. Member must be

satisfied when I say that we are not satisfied that there has been no intimidation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is objecting to my intervening—

Mr. Lyttelton: No.

Mr. Griffiths: —but the Minister is going to Africa shortly. I have been there too. This is a very difficult human problem. This is an allegation of intimidation, and it is very important that we should have some evidence of it.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the right hon. Gentleman may be a little more satisfied when I have finished my remarks on this point, but the Committee can take it from me that I have received some evidence which leads me to suppose that there has been some intimidation. There are reasons, which obviously hon. Members will respect, why it would be very embarrassing for me to place a confidential report like that upon the Table, and I do not propose to do so. I simply ask hon. Members to take my word that I have some evidence to this effect. Later reports—and this, perhaps, is where the right hon. Gentleman will become less heated—show some change.
A telegram has been passed to me which may interest the right hon. Gentleman. I will read it because it may help. This is a telegram from the Governor of Nyasaland, and it says:
Individuals in the Southern Province have said that they dare not voice support of federation for fear of being killed. Allegations of Congress campaign of intimidation in the Southern and Central Provinces are widespread, and one African member of the Legislative Council has confidentially voiced to the Secretary for African Affairs his fear of the Congress.
I have couched my statement in the most moderate terms that I can. Later reports, however, show some change, and state that Congress leaders are now calling upon Africans to study the scheme. There is no reason to think that this means a change of view, but it is a change of some kind, and it is for the better. I hope all Africans will study the scheme and will come to see what I believe to be its real advantages for them.
The point I now want to come to, following the general line of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, is that the period


between today and the next conference—a period of five months—is to be used to explain the nature of these proposals, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is going there next Tuesday to get a picture of the state of African opinion at the moment.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what has been the attitude of the two Africans from Southern Rhodesia since they returned to their country?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not informed of that accurately, and I do not propose to deal with what they may have said. I saw them when they were here. I am sorry, but I do not happen to have in my mind what they may have recently said. Perhaps my hon. Friend from the Commonwealth Relations Office will bear the point in mind when he winds up.
African opinion is certainly changing. I do not claim that at the moment it is swinging over violently towards federation, but at least it is changing, because many of the grounds upon which federation was originally opposed have now been altered and—this will appeal to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway)—some of the ammunition fired, figuratively speaking, by local opponents of federation comes from no local arsenal or magazine but from sources in this country. The very phraseology can often be traced in some cases. I do not complain particularly about that, but I want to register my opinion at this moment that phrases like, "African opinion is solidly against the scheme" are far too definite or dogmatic to be accepted, nor will they find general acceptance among those who are more closely in touch with African conditions.

Mr. John Dugdale: While I am perfectly willing to admit that it may be difficult to ascertain African opinion, if it is ascertained that African opinion is against the proposal, am I right in thinking that at this stage the Government are not committed to impose federation?

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman has had that assurance time and time again. I have said that this is not the moment for decision. There is to be another conference, and five months are to elapse before that conference takes

place. We are trying to persuade African opinion, and the House will be given another opportunity to debate the matter before any step is taken. I did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would intervene in regard to something on which I have already assured him. I hope that his next intervention will be on something more specific.
The period we have allowed is to be used to try to persuade African opinion, if it is possible, that this scheme is to their advantage. One of the reasons it has been difficult for African opinion to form itself is that the Africans have not had a definite scheme before them. We could hardly have expected them to accept anything in those circumstances. Since only broad proposals, subject to wide variation, had been formulated. African opinion took counsel of its fears.
Those fears were concerned mainly with Protectorate status, with matters of land tenure and with their political aspirations. I suggest that if they study the scheme now they will see that we have done everything possible to allay those anxieties, and that these subjects are not being removed from the responsibility of the Territorial Governments. Our object must be first to explain and then—as the right hon. Gentleman has stressed—try to form African opinion, or large sections of it, in favour of the scheme.
I shall devote one or two moments to the contention of some controversialists in this matter that it is improper to use Government servants to explain to the native population the advantages of the scheme. I must say straight away that I cannot accept this contention in any respect. A large part of the life of every district officer in Colonial Territories is naturally and properly concerned with explaining the plans of the Government of his Territory and how those plans affect the local population. I am very glad to see the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) nodding his head. It seems to me to be quite a natural course that the district officer should also be expected to explain a scheme in which his Government are taking part, and a scheme to the draft of which his Government have attached their signature.
There seems to be no breach with ordinary tradition in these matters for these people to explain, for example, that


all matters concerned with land and land tenure are to remain within the competence of the Territorial Legislatures and that federation will have no effect in those respects. To say that no district officer should be used to explain or to persuade the population of the benefits of the scheme is nonsense to me. One might just as well say that it would be improper for the Minister of Agriculture to use an agricultural officer in this country to explain to farmers that the slaughter policy was the best one in the case of foot-and-mouth disease.
Part of the duty of Colonial Service officers, not only here but all over the world, in small matters as well as big, is to explain the nature of the policy and the reasons which actuate it. The Civil Service in these countries are going to use the time available between now and the next conference to explain, expound and underline the advantages of the scheme.

Mrs. Eirene White: Will they also underline some of the disadvantages of the scheme and put it perfectly clearly before the Africans that there are some disadvantages?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have made it quite clear that the Government believe in the scheme of federation and it is natural that the Civil Service will take the documents and expound the scheme as it is, explaining the advantages. At the same time as they do this, it is their duty to keep us continually informed of the state of African opinion as the information comes in. I have already mentioned the results of our inquiries—and apparently they were distasteful to one or two hon. Members—but up to date it is quite a small trickle of information because the procedure is only just beginning.

Mr. Clement Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had received reports with regard to the change in African opinion; but I gather he has not received reports with regard to the opinions expressed by the two Africans who attended with him at the conference. Has not the right hon. Gentleman received from Southern Rhodesia a copy of the "Rhodesian Herald" of 23rd June, 1952, referring to the statement made by one of the Africans who were at that conference?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not in mind exactly what was said. My hon. and learned Friend will deal with the point when he winds up.
With regard to the draft constitution and the differences between it and the original scheme, I will try to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's points as I go along. There are two main differences. The first relates to the African Affairs Board, and the most important change is the disappearance of the Minister for African Interests and the substitution of an independent chairman. I think that will improve the Board. The members of the Board will be elected from outside the legislatures of any of the territories concerned.
I am not going into the question of the first duty of the Board, which is to certify where, in their opinion, measures are differentiated against Africans, because that is very clear from the White Paper; but I think it is necessary to quote the definition of differentiation as set out in the draft document:
differentiating measure' means a Bill or a subordinate law by which Africans are subjected or made liable to any conditions, restrictions or disabilities disadvantageous to them to which Europeans are not also subjected or made liable, or which might in its practical application have a like effect.
and so forth. The argument is sometimes advanced—and the right hon. Gentleman was on this point—that the new African Affairs Board appears to have powers only of delay and reference. They are not in at the beginning; they are not able to influence legislation in infancy, but only when it is adolescent. The right hon. Gentleman did not advance that argument himself; he referred to it.
I do not think that that argument is quite sound. I draw the Committee's attention to the constructive aspect of the African Affairs Board. It will be the general function of the Board to make to the Prime Minister representations in relation to any matter within the legislative or executive authority of the federation. I do not want to be too long in developing the point, but the African Affairs Board as such cannot have executive functions other than those given to them by the Legislature, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in some confusion between these two points. They have the statutory opportunity of suggesting measures which they think would


be to the advantage of the African population.
So this paragraph is not concerned with powers of delay or reference, but places on the Board the constructive duty to refer measures to the Prime Minister for the promotion of African interest. This paragraph very largely demolishes the argument of those who say that the Board are only a reference Board and have only power of delay. If they do their duty, they will have the right to propose measures to the Prime Minister in just the same way as a Minister for African Affairs in a Cabinet might have.
I must say at this point why we have torn up the officials' proposals on this particular point. I ask the Committee how they think it possible to carry on a Cabinet Government when one Minister would not share fully the collective responsibility of his colleagues—a Minister who may be dismissed when the Cabinet remains or who may remain when the Cabinet departs. I think that since these proposals were originally made their strained nature has been widely recognised.
I always like to quote from some source which is not in political harmony with my party or the present Government, so on this occasion I choose the Fabian Colonial Bureau pamphlet of September, 1951 [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know whether those cheers are meant to show that the Fabian Bureau are coming round to my way of thinking. They say
If this Minister"—
that is, the Minister under the officials' scheme—
carried out his duties fully, it would be at least difficult for the Cabinet to work on the principle of collective responsibility.
The remarks of the Fabian Bureau on this matter appear to me to be axiomatic. It would be impossible, too, for the Minister to carry out his duties. The only result of what is colloquially but rather inelegantly called the "Cuckoo Minister" would be to hamstring the Cabinet and to underline rather than to compose differences between Ministers and make discussion in the Cabinet difficult and no one would be able to tell what stresses would be set up.
Civil servants, in my experience, rarely err on the side of the eccentric or exotic,

but I think that both these epithets might be applied to the scheme originally put forward in the report. Had we adopted it, we should have been flying in the face of experience and adopting a device which I think would be unprecedented in any Cabinet system or in any democratic system relying upon Parliamentary or representative institutions.
Finally, I want to say a word about the composition of the Board. Under the old system there were to be 10 members, which included only three Africans. Under the new Board there are six members and a chairman three of the six members must be Africans and the chairman must only exercise his casting vote in favour of keeping the subject under discussion. Therefore, I should like to say, before leaving this part of the argument, that it is my sincere and profound conviction that the new Board is workable, which the old one was not, and that it gives true instead of false safeguards to African interests.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We shall see.

Mr. Lyttelton: No doubt, very regrettably, the right hon. Gentleman does not share that view. However, I am going to give my view, and no doubt we shall have the advantage of hearing his a little later.
I now turn to the major change made in the draft constitutional instrument, and perhaps it would be worth while if I gave a little of the background. Some of the members of the African delegation who attended the conference, and with whom I had long private conversations, expressed fears about the strength or validity of what they called "entrenched clauses" where the Government of the day wished to alter them. Frankly, I think that many of the analogies to which they drew attention were false. But here is a point which I then thought and still think must be made.
As the Committee know, under the draft constitution, any change in the constitution can only be made by a two-thirds majority in the Federal Parliament. If no objection is raised the resolution cannot be assented to by the Governor-General, but has to be remitted here for Her Majesty's pleasure upon the advice of the Secretary of State. But if objection is raised either by the African Affairs Board or by any of the three Legislatures,


then the negative procedure in this country is, so to speak, set in motion.
The proposed alteration has to lie on the Table of both Houses for 40 days, and, of course, can be prayed against. In other words, if objection is raised by any of the four bodies concerned, then the alteration could only go through after full Parliamentary discussion and approval in the House and in another place.
I have up to now stated my sincere belief—and I repeat it—that the new African Affairs Board is a stronger instrument for forwarding and protecting African interests than the one formerly proposed, and I add to that by saying that the check upon constitutional change, which is an entirely new feature of the present scheme, makes the safeguards considered desirable impregnable.
I now want to turn to meet the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the discretionary powers of the Governor-General. He referred to this particular power on page 25. The Governor-General may in his discretion assent to the Bill if he is satisfied that it is not differentiating. At this stage, I only want to state quite simply the reason this forms part of the present document.
At the Conference we considered—and it may be it was a far-fetched consideration—that there might be an obdurate conflict between the African Affairs Board and the Government of the day. Such a thing would not be impossible, and the Board might certify every Measure advanced by the Government of the day, irrespective of its nature, as a differentiating one. In other words, and in our terminology, dilatory powers would be handed over without any check whatever, which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to govern.
But the right hon. Gentleman—by a mistake, I think—omitted to say that, supposing the Governor-General did use his power, he would have to report fully to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would have the ability to disallow such legislation if his opinion were different from that of the Governor-General. That is another very great safeguard. Nor can I really be expected to accept an argument which would endow this potential Governor-General with a complete lack of political experience,

knowledge or integrity. I say quite frankly that I do not think any Governor-General would exercise such a power without the most overwhelming reasons, of which those I have given seem to be the only ones. There is the further safeguard if his judgment is seen to be faulty. His decision can be reversed by reference to the Secretary of State.
The next argument, and I think it is one which everyone in the Committee must respect, is that the safeguards about changes in the constitution freeze or photograph the composition of the House in perpetuity. This is one of the inherent disadvantages which attend the safeguards, and I admit it, but I do not see how it is avoidable. But I ask the Committee to look at a much wider picture. The more one makes it impossible to change the constitution except by long process, the more one intends to fix the present provisions for a long time. I do not see how that is avoidable consistent with our duties to provide these safeguards.
As I say, I ask the Committee to look at a much wider picture. The future of the constitution depends on an ever-growing sense of partnership, and, as education and enlightenment spread, upon a wider franchise and upon more Africans becoming members of Legislative Council. It cannot stand without it.
I turn to emphasise one argument which I left out but which I think is worth making. It is complete nonsense to set promises about federation made by Her Majesty's Government as absolutely naught, as some African opinion appears to do while attaching unbounded faith in Her Majesty's Government's word if the territories are to remain solely under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. Those two arguments are mutually destructive.
If it were any part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work towards complete European domination, no federal instrument would be required to do so. It would be far simpler to put those reactionary ideas into force through the existing machinery. No such ideas exist in Her Majesty's Government or in any of her likely successors, or, for that matter, in the mind of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.
The communiqué at the end of the Victoria Falls conference referred to the three fears, upon which I have already


touched, harboured by the African population. Is Protectorate status to be preserved? It is. Are land and land settlement questions to be the responsibility of the territorial rather than of the federal Government? They are. Thirdly, is the political advancement of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, both in local and territorial government, to remain as at present? They do so continue. I hope that I have dealt with all the points.

Mr. Gordon Walker: One point with which the right hon. Gentleman could deal is whether control over the method of election could be transferred from local to territorial government.

Mr. Lyttelton: I shall leave my hon. Friend to develop that point. I shall not detain the Committee much longer.
Hon. Gentlemen must take stock of the responsibility which rests upon our shoulders. All colonial administration would be immensely simplified, and the position of the Secretary of State would become a mere sinecure, if all he had to do was to follow one simple rule, and that was that no measure should be considered or favoured that was unpopular with any large section of any community. There is unfortunately no escape from the responsibility. There would be no excuse if we deliberately and prematurely imposed measures which led to strife and confusion merely because the majority of the House thought that those measures were beneficent.
Our responsibility does not end there at all. If it be true—and I believe it to be so—that these three territories are weak by themselves, and if in the course of time native policies which are inimical to Africans, and for that matter inimical to the views of this House, should be in the ascendant, we shall not be excused in the eyes of history for having shirked or deferred our duty because of some opposition until it was too late to reverse those tendencies.
The time of decision is not now. It will come later. I have already assured the Committee that they will have further opportunity of debating the matter before any irrevocable step was taken. I hope that hon. Gentlemen in every part of the Committee will support this draft constitution, which I believe will enjoy an ever-widening measure of agreement.
The communiqué issued after the Victoria Falls conference used these words:
The Conference was gravely concerned at the dangers which would flow from any weakening or dilution of the. British connection and British traditions and principles in the three territories and agreed that they should so be strengthened as to ensure that they should continue to prevail.
In the debate on 4th March, the right hon. Member for Smethwick, following up that part of the communiqué, used this language:
I certainly agree with the principle of federation.
He has re-affirmed it again this afternoon. He went on:
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this is quite clear from the Victoria Falls communiqué to which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly put our names.
Later, he went on to say:
It seems to me that, in the context with which we are dealing, the maintenance of the British connection, traditions and principles is absolutely essential to the success of the policy towards Africans in which we believe.
Finally he said:
I do not believe—and this is what convinces me that federation is right in principle—that we can permanently maintain the British connection and traditions in the whole of this area without federation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 313 and 314.]
I do not think I can better those words.
I conclude by saying again that no constitution will survive if the aim of one of the two main races in Central Africa were to dominate the other. It is not our aim to see Central Africa dominated entirely by Europeans. It would be against the trend of the century in which we live, and the policy would fall by its own weight. There is no future in the other idea of Central Africa exclusively dominated by Africans. Get rid of the Europeans, and you get rid of the objective progress which we all desire. It is quite easy to see the truth of this by taking an aeroplane. You can see the territories in Africa from which European influence has disappeared or been excessively diluted and can contrast them with the areas in which the European has been allowed to make his contribution. We can all agree that the ever-wider horizon for these territories lies in true partnership.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I shall not go over the ground covered by the two previous speakers. I shall try to deal with some of the larger aspects of this subject and not with such details as the draft constitution. We are dealing with the future of Central Africa. That future has to be dealt with by somebody. It cannot be left to drift.
I suggest that Central Africa has no future worth speaking about unless this system of federation is carried out. The economic future of the territories is bound up with their coming together economically. Years ago I had something to do with the Newfoundland business. Parochial people in Newfoundland wanted to remain a Dominion and be independent of the vast Union of Canada. Common sense at last prevailed, and they entered the Union of Canada. Since then, the position of Labrador and Newfoundland has been radically altered. Now those vast territories can be developed properly. Some people in Newfoundland have lost the chance of becoming Prime Minister of Newfoundland, but the territories have benefited enormously from federation with Canada.
The three African territories have no political future unless they come into a federation. It has been stated that even Southern Rhodesia, the richest of the three, is not able to stand alone, financially or otherwise. I think that is true. Those people who want to advance towards self-government must first establish some sort of financial independence, and it can only be done in these three territories by federation. Those who are opposing federation are opposing the rapid advance to self-government which all the people in these three territories desire.
I am proud of the fact that when my party was in office we initiated this great scheme which affects not merely the three territories concerned but a great part of the world. The French in North Africa have exactly the same problem. There a minority of Frenchmen have built up the territories where the majority consists of another race. The French are struggling with that problem today, and it will again be the privilege of Britain to show how this multi-racial problem can be settled, for we shall settle

it if people will examine it objectively on its merits instead of indulging in shoddy propaganda.
It so happens that under the constitution of these territories the final word rests with the Government of Great Britain. Therefore, we have a right to discuss this problem and to criticise the people in those territories, just as they have the right to criticise us. Yet in Southern Rhodesia public men sometimes resent criticism made by some of us in this country.
Some of the propaganda put out in Southern Rhodesia is childish. For instance, their Prime Minister said, I think in that legislature, that my party took their orders from the Red Master. I presume he meant the Red Master of the Kremlin. In case my words can carry to the backwoods of Southern Rhodesia, I want to quote what Lenin, who was a Red Master, said about our party since it may be enlightening. Talking about the British Labour Party, Lenin said that he would support it as the rope supports the man who is about to be hanged. Lenin knew more about the British Labour Party than some of those myopic people in Southern Rhodesia. He knew the real enemy to the designs of Soviet Imperialism to be the social democratic parties of the world. Since that time the chief abuse about "Fascist beasts" has been reserved for the Social Democrats of the world, including ourselves.
As we have to settle this problem, we shall have to ask the people of Southern Rhodesia and in the two Protectorates the following question, "If you oppose this scheme, what are your alternatives?" If they want to remain as they are, we shall know what they mean. If they say they want a change, they must tell us what change, instead of abusing us for our ignorance of what goes on in the territories. The whole matter is now sub judice. The Southern Rhodesians are considering amendments to the draft scheme and so are the Protectorates. They must put before us an alternative. If not, the only thing we can do is to come to a decision without consulting them, which is the last thing we want to do.
An alternative suggestion has been voiced by the President of the African


Congress in Northern Rhodesia, Mr. Nkumbula. This is what he said:
This is our country. There is no mistake about that. The best government for the black people is a government fully manned and run by the black people themselves.
There is the colour bar in excelsis—the government is to be run and manned by the black people.
If my words carry to that gentleman, I suggest that if he thinks a single Member of the Labour Party in Great Britain stands for that, he is simply indulging in pipe dreams, because not one member of the Labour Party would stand up and say he was in favour of that policy. We are in favour of partnership. We are in favour of the government of the country being run by the representatives of all the races in their country. That is the policy of the Labour Party—

Mr. Lyttelton: And of the Government.

Mr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the policy of the Government, and with that we agree. Colour bar rule is insanity and madness, it is bombast at its worst. People who say such things to their unfortunate, ignorant followers are leading them along the road to destruction, and there are those in this country who are advocating the same thing—I am not, of course, referring to hon. Members.
There is no future for black government in those territories, and there is no future for white domination in Southern Rhodesia. The sooner the people in Southern and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland learn that simple fact, the better. If they are left alone and not led astray by misguided people, before long they will themselves come to see that federation means an immense advance for them politically, economically and socially.
Judging by the statement of the President of the African Federation, he is living in the jungle. He does not seem to realise the elementary fact that the world is inter-dependent today as never before. When he talks about setting up a black Government manned by blacks, I ask: what about the defence of the country? Does he not realise that his country would be overrun by Communist imperialism in a short time if it were not for the democracies of the West who are

protecting its liberty? Is he not willing to demand that the Western democracies should provide the enormous capital required to develop those countries? If he thinks that enormous capital will flow into Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland manned exclusively by a black government which has removed the whites, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
This is the kind of fantastic propaganda which is being spread in those territories. The people are being told that if there is federation their land will be taken away, though the scheme provides that the land in question in the two Northern Territories would be under the complete control of the Secretary of State here and of the Protectorates' own Governments, not the Federal Government.
For a long time I have dealt with people of other races than my own. I have found from experience that they despise people who are afraid to tell them the truth. I have spoken as freely in the East as I am speaking here today, and I have never yet found a single native taking offence at being told the truth by a friend. I say now to some of those black leaders that they are responsible for trying to lead their people to disaster.
When the gentleman I have mentioned says, "This is our country," I presume he implies that they will own the land there. The land belongs to those who acquired it legally and have occupied it for a long time and have prescriptive rights. I tell this gentleman again, with my compliments, that if he thinks the Europeans and the Indians who have lawfully acquired property there, land or otherwise, will be intimidated by threats, he is wrong. Because he went on to say that, if federation were to be introduced, the lot of the Europeans would become intolerable.
I do not know whether the gentleman is serious or what he means, but that sort of attack is trying to kill federation, and it is used because there are no valid arguments against it. There are 200,000 whites in those three territories. They are a sturdy, well-educated race. They have made their homesteads there. This is not the Gold Coast where white men are merely birds of passage, but a country where white men can live, make their homesteads, breed, do manual work, bring up their children. They intend to


stay and will not be pushed out, and it is wicked and immoral and foolish of such people to try to push them out. Those white men and Indians who have come into these territories have as much right to live in the country as the Bantu or anyone else—

Mr. J. Griffiths: On equal terms.

Mr. Reid: Of course, on equal terms. I am totally opposed to what that gentleman has recommended. They have a perfect right to remain there, especially since it has been due largely to their brains and energy, backed up by African labour, that these territories have been lifted up from dire poverty and backwardness into comparative prosperity. The Labour Party stand for partnership, and the people who advocate black rule and domination, or white rule and domination, will not get support from a single Member of the Labour Party in the House.
I say also from experience that when new, far reaching proposals like this are placed before natives, especially before those who have not had the responsibility, unfortunately, of ruling themselves, they look askance at them and are terrified and frightened. Time and time again, in assemblies or committees, I have seen that the moment a new proposal was made, there was universal opposition to it from the native people. But afterwards, they sit down and talk around the table, more meetings are held, and finally the proposals, when the people come to understand them, are unanimously adopted.
I predict that when the scheme is properly and correctly explained by the district officers—they are the only people who can do so where there are no great political parties—the majority of the African leaders and of the African people will in the long run accept the scheme. I predict also that when it is implemented, as I am certain it will be, no trouble will arise.
That is not merely my own opinion. I have taken pains to find out from people who know the country and who have lived there for years that we need not anticipate any violence. What is happening at present is all froth and bombast. So far, the Africans have not considered the thing seriously. Today,

the Colonial Secretary tells us that at last there is a change and that they are beginning to consider it. That is the beginning of the end of the process. The scheme is inherently sound, and it is so good for all the parties concerned, and especially for the natives, in the countries affected, that in the end reason and common sense are bound to prevail.
Changes may be needed in the draft scheme, but I will not go into them now. If it is proved that changes are needed they can be made. I am very glad that the Colonial Secretary today, without the slightest reluctance, has agreed that before any final decision is made here, there will be another debate in the House.
I hope that whichever Ministers go out, they will, if possible, in whatever districts they visit, meet Europeans, natives and Indians together. All that these people need is to have confidence in us and to feel that we are telling them the truth and are not trying to fool them in any way. I predict that in time they will come round to our way of thinking.
I am pleased also that the right hon. Gentleman is not pushing the scheme too fast. In these countries it takes six years to adopt a new idea which in the West would be adopted in six months. Kipling has told the story of the man who tried to hustle the East and whose grave is marked by a great white stone. The moral of the story is equally true of Africa. We must treat these people with patience and sympathy, and we must persuade and convince them that the scheme will work for their good. As a result, they will adopt this magnificent scheme. I wish it all success, and I hope that before long it will be implemented.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, will find themselves in very substantial agreement with everything that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has said. Those of us who have been in the House since the war are used to hearing very good sense talked by him on these problems, in which he has had so much practical experience, which, alas, is sometimes lacking in others of us. I am not so sure that I entirely support the hon. Member in his history of social democracy in Europe and where it is leading, but apart from that I am in agreement with him.
All of us welcome this debate before the House rises. This is a tremendous problem, and the successful solution of the problem of federation in Central Africa will have a far wider effect than in merely the three territories which are included in the scheme. It will, we believe, give a lead in race relations, not only in Central Africa, but in Africa as a whole and in the free world beyond.
I shall not say anything to raise the temperature of the debate. Last week I had the opportunity of paying tribute to what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) did in giving a lead in East Africa. At the time, I hoped that he would give a similar lead in Central Africa by coming out more firmly in support of the proposals that were laid just over a year ago, as he has, in fact, now done. I will say no more than that if he had given such a lead 15 months ago, I believe that a great deal of the misunderstanding that has since arisen might have been avoided.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The lead I gave was that they should come together and agree.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, but it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman supported the practical proposals and said that in principle he believed they were right.
I myself have confidence in the good will of the overwhelming majority of the people in these territories. It is rather tedious at times in the House to listen to some of the things that are said about those who make their lives in the territories overseas—not merely the settlers, but members of the Colonial Service, missionaries, members of the Churches, and so on. All these people—those in the Colonial Service and the Churches in particular—are dedicated to this work and will do their utmost to see that no harm is done to the Africans or, equally, to the Europeans, all of whom have made their life in these territories.
In so far as there is criticism in the House, I would point out that it is the Europeans who are living out there who will suffer most if we cannot all, including themselves, find a settlement to these problems. From what I have seen of the Europeans, I believe that they are determined to find a solution which will lead to peace and happiness in the territories. If they do not find such a solu-

tion, it is their children who will suffer most, not ours.
Constitution-mongering is necessarily a specialist activity. Those who have studied the points which are put forward hi pages 11 to 13 of the draft scheme will, I think, agree that is a very fair division of activities between the central and the territorial Governments. We have heard the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) say that in principle he, too, speaking for his party, is agreed on this division and on the draft scheme, and that what we are trying to counteract most of all is the fear of the Africans.
Again, the safeguards which the scheme contains are, as my right hon. Friend has stressed, pretty conclusive. They include the provision for a two-thirds majority, the negative procedure, with a Prayer, and the African Affairs Board. Under the latter, paragraph 6 (1) on page 25 of the scheme, relating to appeals to the Governor-General, states that
the Governor-General shall send the notice of objection together with the Prime Minister's comments to a Secretary of State.
It has been suggested to me that there might be some change by which this appeal might go to the Court of Appeal in Central Africa and then to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At this stage I do not want to ask my right hon. Friend who is to reply for too many answers to these detailed suggestions, but I should like to leave that suggestion on the record so that when any points are looked at after the debate that might possibly be considered.
Another point which I think might be significant in the future is that throughout this document the term "Governor-General" is used. As I see it, in the state of transition in which we live and in the development of constitutions overseas, the powers of the Governor are being split up. We are finding speakers, clerks at the table and other high officials being appointed and the full "19th century" functions of a Governor-General in administration are tending to become less. But the whole time he remains the representative of the Sovereign.
I do not know the exact moment—technically, I suppose when there is an unofficial majority in a territory—but the moment will arise when the Governor-General will be no longer technically an


executive administrator, but primarily a representative of the Crown. I think the right hon. Gentleman will support me in believing, from his visit to Africa last year, that the Crown still means a tremendous amount in these territories overseas. Possibly when the time comes and a final scheme is laid before the House, it may meet the wishes of those concerned if, instead of "Governor-General," the term to be used could be "Viceroy," with all the implications that great title carries.
I hope that when those who oppose this scheme carefully examine their objections, they will bear in mind the following points. Just a year ago an all-party delegation went from this House to Central Africa. I suggest with respect that they were four practical men who had a previous background of knowledge. They went out and studied the problem in detail in situ, came back and put forward, to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a unanimous Report. I submit that when such a Report is put forward unanimously we have, in this draft scheme which follows the report, something really well worth supporting.
Secondly, to those who oppose this scheme I would put the point that, although it may not be a perfect one—very few constitutions I have ever studied are perfect—yet it is up to them, as the hon. Member for Swindon said, to put constructive alternatives forward and not just advocate further delay. If they do not like the present scheme, they should put something which is workable in its place. So far as I can see, that has not been done.
Again, supposing this federal scheme did not go through, have the opponents thought that there are 2,500,000 Africans in Southern Rhodesia who will be deprived of certain undoubted advances put forward for them under this scheme? I hope that the Minister of State will have a most successful trip to Africa when he goes out at the end of the month. There is no one I would rather see going out to put the case fairly and squarely to get the reactions of the Europeans and the Africans and all concerned in that part of Central Africa. I believe he will find great good will there towards the attempt that is being made.
From the information I have, there is now a definite swing towards practical consideration of the scheme and I am quite certain that when the time comes all who live there will find that this proposal will work for the health, wealth and happiness of the greatest number of those who make their homes in Central Africa.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: It is all to the good that we have had this debate before we adjourn for the Recess next week, if only because of the fact that the Secretary of State has made two very important pronouncements today. There was a two-day debate in another place on this matter recently and the definite statement made by the Secretary of State today was not made there.
The first statement which we welcome is that before any final step is taken—I take it that by that any definite step is meant—the matter will be brought before the House for full debate. That is vital. The second point—and I wish this had been stated more clearly before—is that Her Majesty's Government consider it quite right that, however good the scheme may be, however advantageous it may be, however right economically or politically it may be, it would be wrong to force it upon an unwilling people. That again is a great advance. Speaking personally, I am grateful that that statement has been made.
This is not merely an economic problem, or even a political problem, it is a great human problem as well, for we are considering today a scheme which will he concerned with the fate of at least 6 million people. There are more than 6 million Africans and some 160,000 Europeans.

Sir Leslie Plummer: One hundred and eighty thousand.

Mr. Davies: Some 180,000 Europeans now. This scheme concerns their future for a considerable time. I wish there had been a larger attendance listening to the Secretary of State making those two statements. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), in the course of his speech, accused the present Government of clumsy handling of this matter and apparently meant that since


they have been in office they have mishandled the matter in a way in which the previous Government did not mishandle it. It seems to me a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The real mistake began with the late Government. Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman says today, "I am definitely in favour of federation; I have been all along in favour of federation, and I thought it was the right thing to do." In that respect he was speaking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of his colleague the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and, indeed, for the late Government.
Having made up their minds that that was good, they issued a document which had been prepared for them by those splendid civil servants who are in these three territories, and then said, "We feel this is right. Of course, we are not going to force this upon you. But our powers of persuasion are so splendid and it is so good in itself that we are coming out to Africa and we are quite sure that you will accept it."

Mr. J. Griffiths: I did not say anything of the kind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is presuming to state something which my right hon. Friend and I said. Where did he get that from?

Mr. Davies: I am stating what, perfectly obviously, must have happened.

Mr. Griffiths: No. What we have said about this was said in the House of Commons and is on record. I would therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to paraphrase in his own words or to misrepresent what I have said, but at least to quote what I have said.

Mr. Davies: I am entitled to state what I conclude is the way in which this has been put before the Africans. It was put before them when they went to Victoria Falls as a scheme for federation which met with the approval of the Government in the fond hope that the Africans would also agree to accept it. They went out there, but unfortunately they found that the Africans would not agree. The Africans would not come to Victoria Falls. Some of them came, but many stayed away. Thereupon that Government was succeeded by the present

Government, who again said, "We also like federation."
I think that the better way to have approached this would have been to have gone to Victoria Falls with an open mind and to have said, "We have come out to consult you and to see what you, both European and African, think is the best way of dealing with this." Unfortunately, as the Africans have time and again pointed out, that very excellent report prepared by those civil servants which recommended federation was prepared without consulting African opinion directly. Of course, they knew about the conditions, but the Africans were no party to it at all. That undoubtedly is a psychological difficulty which has arisen because of the way in which this matter has been handled.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question? He is complaining about the way we handled this. Will he explain why he never had occasion to protest about the way we handled it and why he voted against the way this Government handled it last March?

Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of lookng up my speeches on this matter, he will find that all along I have taken the same line. I say there has been mishandling of this matter throughout; I am clearly on record with regard to that. This was not the way to do it. The right way would have been to invite opinion before making the recommendation.
Anyway, it has been done, and both Europeans and Africans are faced with the situation that the present Government are strongly recommending federation pretty nearly in the same form as the late Government recommended it, but with improvements which have been made as a result of further consideration.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: And consultation.

Mr. Davies: I wish to know one thing, why is it that all along it has been suggested that this matter is extremely urgent? What is the hurry? Why is it that we cannot wait for this? What is the peril which is feared? I have never yet heard the full explanation of what is feared.
I understand, of course, that at present not one of these three territories is strong enough to supply its own needs. One has some assets which the other two have not. That applies to each one. One has coal which the other two have not; one has metal which the other two have not; one has surplus labour which the other two have not, and all that kind of thing. But surely, that could be arranged whether federation is to go through or not. What is it which all the time is put forward as the reason this is a matter of extreme urgency which will not brook any further delay of any kind?
It seems to me that what is happening here is what is happening throughout the world—everyone is moved by fear. Fear seems to be the dominating factor in almost every country in the world. Look at it in this case. Here are 160,000 Europeans who, it would appear to me, are saying, "We fear there may be tremendous African domination." Undoubtedly the Africans themselves, the 6 million of them, are fearing that there will be domination exercised over them by the minority of Europeans who are there.
It is never wise to allow ourselves to be guided merely by fear. It is a bad line. Federation must at all times connote willing agreement, and in that I gather I am now echoing the sentiments expressed so well by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. There must be a free, conscious consent by all parties to federation. If one party is forced into a new step, or a new form of government, then it is not federation, it is domination by—

Mr. Lyttelton: If I may be allowed to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would say that I prefer to stand on the words I have used, rather than on the echo which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be making of them.

Mr. Davies: Very well, they will both stand and be on record. But may I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? An agreement made under duress is no agreement. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept that? Anyway, we seem to be all agreed now. One cannot have federation unless one secures agreement by all parties.
We should remember also that we are trustees for Northern Rhodesia and

Nyasaland—so far as Northern Rhodesia is concerned, under a Treaty of Alliance made between the Barotse people and Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in 1900. In the same way we took Nyasaland under our protection as a Protectorate as long ago as 1891. So we owe a duty to them, not only to protect them but, unless they wish anything to the contrary, to preserve their identity and not to merge it against their will with anything else. Therefore, it is vital and essential that there should be conscious and full agreement.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to me, from a practical point of view, just how he proposes to get a clear understanding of the opinion of all the Africans in Central Africa, bearing in mind the representation they can command, as to whether they are for or against?

Mr. Davies: One has to do the best one possibly can in those circumstances. I do not suppose we could do it by taking a complete referendum. But there is an African opinion; it may be that it is divided, as the right hon. Gentleman has said—but there is an African opinion, he agrees.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Harris indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I remember that, in the debates regarding India, it used to be said often by hon. Members opposite that there was no such thing as Indian opinion—would they say that today?—and that it was impossible to find out what Indian opinion was.
That there is such an African opinion we certainly do know, and it is accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. May I also say that that is the view of two noble Lords who spoke the other day and who have very long experience of Africa; Lord Hailey, and, still more, Lord Hemingford, who has been out there so long as a teacher and a missionary, and who is the son of a very respected former Member of this House who at one time was Chairman of Ways and Means.
Surely it cannot be said that we can push on one side an expression of view that we now know has been given to us by the missionaries of the Church of England and the Nonconformists. They


have sent to this country the views which they have collected from the people with whom they are in daily contact. As a result the Church of England—I forget the name of the actual body—and the Nonconformist bodies have met and passed resolutions about this matter.
That there is an opinion and that it can be found seems to me to be absolutely clear. There is undoubtedly an opinion strongly against this. How far it goes, I do not know. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman knows, but that there is a strong opinion against it is undoubted. It was expressed before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly went to Victoria Falls. He went to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. He tried to persuade them to go to Victoria Falls and many of them refused.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As a matter of fact, none refused. Those who were invited came to the Conference.

Mr. Davies: I understood that some refused.

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Davies: Not from Nyasaland?

Mr. Griffiths: No. Let us get this clear. We invited African members to come to Victoria Falls from the Protectorate Council and the African Council in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. We invited three from each and they came.

Mr. Davies: I was speaking from memory. I thought that from Nyasaland they failed to come and that from Rhodesia they came, or vice versa. At any rate, there was strong opposition then. It was an opposition which was voiced afterwards in this country.
Their fear is, first, a fear of domination. That is their main fear. Let us look at the figures. In 1938 there were 76,000 Europeans in these three territories. By 1950 the number had grown to 169,000. In 1938 there were 4,300,000 Africans. By 1950 the number had grown to 6 million.
What is proposed in this area which is to be federated? It is proposed that there shall be 26 elected members and seven elected members for African interests, but they need not be Africans and the chances are that they will not be. It is proposed that two shall be appointed

for African interests. Again, they need not necessarily be Africans and, again, the chances are that they will not be.
That is the constitution of the new federation which is about to be set up, and it appears to have so much to commend it that it cannot be changed day by day as we can change matters here in Parliament by a bare majority. It can be changed only by a two-thirds majority. It is a rigid constitution which will be in the hands of the Europeans who will remain there. Therefore, there can only come a change if the Europeans in the Assembly, of their own free will and accord, decide to bring about a change.
What chance is there of that? It is pertinent that we should ask. I have here a report of the debate. I wish that we had the Official Report. There was a debate in the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia on Thursday, 26th June. In "The Chronicle" published in Bulawayo there appears to be a full report of what was stated there, especially by the Minister for Internal Affairs and the Minister of Justice. He was one of the representatives of Southern Rhodesia who came here and took part in the Conference. It is only right that the Committee should hear what he had to say. The report says:
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. O. Stockwell) had expressed fear that the 14 ordinary elected representatives from Southern Rhodesia would all become African. While one conceived that on the constitution as drafted that was theoretically possible, the fears were unjustifiable, as it would fall to the Federal Government to lay down its own franchise laws, and in the very first steps would be taken to deal with the franchise position.
That does not give much encouragement to the African, does it? Where does he come in? The report continues:
The constitution clearly contemplated that there would be a European majority in the House, and it seemed the federal constitution could be altered as circumstances required in order to ensure the position was not reached where Africans had a majority in the House at any time.
With a statement of that kind, is it to be wondered that the 6 million Africans fear domination? There is a man who was brought over here with the Prime Minister trying to persuade his own people, "Now you are all right. We will see that there will always be in this Federal Parliament a majority of Europeans, whatever be the change of circumstances and


whatever be the education that we are able to give to the Africans." Does anyone deny that they have real ground for fearing domination?
What next? They fear losing their land. Have they not had some justification for that? I am again speaking from recollection, but I think that in Southern Rhodesia 37 million acres have been left to the Africans and 48 million acres have been handed over to the Europeans.
Thirdly, they have no faith in entrenched clauses or paper constitutions. Are they wrong, when one looks just across the border to the example of South Africa? Are they wrong in fearing what might happen to them when they can already see what has happened in Southern Rhodesia itself, where one sees discrimination between the African and the European? If we are to see Africa occupied by African races and races of European origin—and I think that both have the right to be there—then Africa can develop only—and I emphasise the word "only"—if there is mutual respect, understanding, tolerance and sympathy. There must be confidence and trust.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read page 33, which deals with amendments to the constitution and the new safeguards which were not put in by the Liberal Government which set up the Act of Union in South Africa?

Mr. Davies: I have read all that. It is an improvement to put in the African Board as a protection for the African. Has the hon. Gentleman seen what Mr. Greenfield had to say about it? He was the man—

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read about the negative Prayers and the other safeguards?

Mr. Davies: That may be. Mr. Greenfield is the man who took part in the conference and then went back home and said, according to "The Chronicle":
This federal scheme, being novel, was fraught with a certain amount of uncertainty. But in broad outline it might be made to work, depending on the human factor. Mr. Greenfield said he was doubtful whether the human factor would rise to the necessary heights, and his doubts were engendered by the proposed African Affairs Board.

That is the Board put in to protect the Africans.
He proposed to join in the attack on this proposal. He regarded this Board as quite an unnecessary institution.
What are we to say? An attack is made upon the Africans about their opinion and their objection, and then we see what is said by the Europeans on the spot about what the present Government and the late Government consider is necessary for the protection of the African.
I would only remind the Committee again of the words used by the Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. Let these words set the standard for us all:
There is only one ideal. There should be no barrier of race, colour or creed to prevent any man of merit from reaching any station if he is fit for it.
That being so, I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Reid) and repeated by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker).
What would I have proposed if federation was not acceptable? It may be that federation will bring about economic benefits, and it is ultimately possible that there may be political benefits, although it is difficult to follow that, in view of the statements that have been made, and in view of the fact that we shall not get a change at all unless it is by the initiative of and is carried out by a two-thirds majority in that small Parliament. I know that the Government intend that this scheme shall not be forced upon these people unless they are willing. What is then to happen? Are we merely to stand still? I do not think so at all.
I should have preferred evolution rather than this revolutionary change. I should have preferred to initiate and educate them in the matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. There is plenty of scope for that in primary, secondary and college education. I should have liked to give them what they have already asked for in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—more responsibility in local government—so that they can learn these matters and acquire experience, and then be able to take even greater responsibility.
I should have liked to give them some responsibility in the administration of justice. They have it in the north, but not in the south. What I should have


liked to see better still would have been a beginning being made by the abolition of this humiliating discrimination between races, a discrimination both in schools and in hospitals and which I believe even goes as far as the cemeteries.
That, I should have thought, would have been the better approach. If that approach had been made at the outset, I think we would have gone much further than we have succeeded in going. At any rate, one knows that, now that the Minister of State is going out there, there will be no forcing of this scheme on these people. There will be an effort at persuading them, which is quite right, and, if everybody agrees, all will be well, but, if there is one standing out, then this matter will not be forced upon them, but will be brought before the House of Commons before a final decision is made.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Listening to the beginning of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I had a somewhat lingering feeling that, despite his previous speeches, he was in favour of federation in principle. I must admit that I now find my doubts entirely dispelled. It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is against federation, and, on reading his speech tomorrow, if he does not come to that conclusion himself, I think that any other hon. Members who read it will be certain to do so. Much as I would like the exercise of commenting on his speech point by point, and seeking in some instances to correct them, I am afraid that it would take more time than I can devote to it in the short contribution that I wish to make.
I have, however, one or two small points to make at this stage on his speech. Firstly, I do not myself accept the interpretation of the remarks and assurances of the Secretary of State which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. I shall not go further, except to say that I leave the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply to the debate to make that point clear himself later on.
Secondly, there is his criticism on the alleged mishandling of this scheme, first of all, by the last Government, and then by the present Government. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not expect me to spring to their

defence, which is something they are indeed well able to do for themselves, but I certainly do not accept that there has been any mishandling by the present Government. In this case, I have some sympathy with the occupants of both front benches who have had to deal with this problem, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman is almost unique in the House in being able to criticise the handling of our national affairs by both this Government and the last without any immediate fear of having to assume those responsibilities himself.
Then there is the question of his very misleading comparisons of figures of the black and white populations, respectively, in the territories concerned. I believe that anybody who has any practical experience of these countries, no matter on which side of the Committee they sit, but particularly those hon. Gentlemen opposite who went out there with the Mission, would agree that, in the present state of civilisation of Africans, the mere counting of heads as a basis for the responsibility of Government is completely unfeasible. The whole point of our aim there should be to raise, by education, health and otherwise, the ability of the African population to take part in these responsibilities. To say now that, because there are six million Africans and about 180,000 Europeans, therefore all Government representation should be proportionate to numbers, quite irrespective of ability or capacity, verges on the ridiculous.
Lastly, and this point was made in another debate we had on this subject, when I had the good fortune to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, although only for two minutes before the Secretary of State was due to reply. On that occasion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out a rather dramatic statement made by a gentleman in Southern Rhodesia which was given considerable publicity the next day. It referred to the "White Settlers Federation," and the statement was certainly couched in very Malan-like terms.
I felt that it was rather unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give such wide publicity to a statement which had been sent to him without checking up on what sort of authority it rested. I have taken the trouble to write to friends in Southern Rhodesia to find out what backing this


statement had, and I have discovered that the White Settlers Federation consists of one leader and one follower, so that I hope—

Mr. C. Davies: I told the House at the time I did not know who sent it to me from Southern Rhodesia but, if I have given publicity to that, I have given equal publicity to statements of the Minister of Justice which were expressed in the same language.

Mr. Bennett: I do not think that is really an answer. I was not criticising the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving publicity to a statement but for giving publicity to it before he had found out whether there was any backing for it or not.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it not strange that the hon. Gentleman was able to find this out, because I asked first at the Colonial Office and later, when I was referred there, at the Commonwealth Relations Office, but they had not got it, nor have they got it yet to the best of my knowledge?

Mr. Bennett: All I can say is that I am perfectly prepared to place at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman the facts which I have obtained. Secondly, I would ask him to take it from me because I have lived there and know the individual concerned; also I know a little bit about the way in which this publicity comes about.
It seems to me that one must practically admit that there are certainly grounds for saying that such articulate African opinion as there is does seem in the main to be hostile at this stage to the scheme of federation. It is a fact, and it is necessary to take note of it, although I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say today that there was evidence of a different trend, as the people are beginning to learn the true facts. I have done my best to try to find out how this state of affairs has arisen. The first possible assumption is that they are genuine. As I say, I do not agree with that, but it is an assumption which we must fairly consider, particularly if, as the right hon. Gentleman and others have said, there are fears of Malan-like domination of the white spreading from Southern Rhodesia.
It is impossible for me, in the short time available, to talk in detail about the differences between the racial situation in Southern Rhodesia and that in South Africa. I can assure everyone that there are very substantial differences. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made a very good point about that when he spoke of his interviews with Southern Rhodesian Africans and explained that they themselves thought there were very substantial differences. One outstanding difference is that there is a common roll in Southern Rhodesia, admittedly with qualifications, which is quite unheard of in the Union. Out of a total electorate of 105,000, about 5,000 Africans could vote if they wanted—and surely that is an outstanding difference between the two countries.
Another point which indicates that the fears are not general is that objections to federation, because of fears of domination, come almost equally from Europeans and Africans. Admittedly that is a negative form of proof, but it is not a bad test of the fairness of a scheme which is trying to hold a balance between two people when, if they do not agree with it, at any rate they both think it unfair to them and more fair to the other side.
Another possible ground for African fears which are being expressed, and which is a logical ground, arises from those Africans who want an all-Black solution on the Gold Coast model. I frankly admit that if they want an all-African State in that part of the world, and if Europeans are to be thrown out or are to leave the country, then federation and partnership are obstacles in their course, but from what I have gathered from previous speeches, practically no hon. Member would favour a system other than that of partnership in those territories, and no one here favours the all-African solution any more than the all-European solution. I think we can therefore dismiss that from our counsels today.
A third possible interpretation of these anxieties which are being expressed by the Africans is ignorance of the real implications and contents of the proposals, both those put forward by the last Government and those contained in this White Paper. That ignorance can clearly arise either from a sheer negative ignorance—not being able to understand or


not yet having had the opportunity to understand the proposals or it can be induced by malicious and false propaganda. I believe there is a good deal of evidence that a lot of the wild talk against these proposals, I do not know anything about intimidation, but certainly much fear, arises from sources which are none too creditable and which are deliberately working up opinion against federation amongst the African population.
The solution to the problem of ignorance—whether it is genuine or due to propaganda—is for tuition about the scheme to be introduced, and I was delighted to hear the steps which are being taken by the Secretary of State to use the machinery at his disposal out there in order to put this scheme clearly before the Africans.

Mr. James Johnson: Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have talked a good deal about African opinion. Since the hon. Gentleman has lived in the territory, would he care to tell us about white settler opinion—whether they are for or against the constitution, and why?

Mr. Bennett: I thought I had dealt with that by suggesting that it was a point in favour of the fairness of the scheme that the white population are certainly nervous of it. I do not agree with the use of the word settler; many of these people have been there for as many generations as have the Africans, but let us not quarrel over whether it should be "white settler" or "white European inhabitant." I think their nervousness is also due to a large extent to ignorance and also to propaganda which is leading them, equally, to think that they will lose their opportunities of livelihood and their children's livelihoods in their own country and will have to disappear from the territories thus destroying the European position in Southern Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) may not accept that, but I assure him that in my view that is the way in which these fears have arisen. He and I had a short exchange in identical terms in a recent debate.
I will revert to the main argument. From a number of Africans to whom I have spoken and from letters which I have received from that part of the world, I have formed the impression—and here

I am summarising—that nearly all of them say, "We are not in favour of federation because we think that it will mean that we shall lose our land and, secondly, because we do not want to lose our Protectorate status." That indicates the sort of ignorance which exists, because neither the proposals of the last Government nor these proposals have in any way suggested that those things can take place. Indeed, the constitution specially guarantees that land tenure shall remain entirely with the territorial government. Secondly, the Protectorate status is guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government and will remain quite unaltered.
Having studied the constitution fairly carefully, I have three specific suggestions to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister of State. He might possibly find them valuable for consideration either here or when he goes out to Africa. Some fears are being expressed about higher education for Africans, and there is some nervousness that higher education comes solely within the province of the federal government. The reason why it is not so far in the province of the territorial government is easy to see: it is because of the obvious expense of building universities, which would be outside the means of any of the three territories.
Nevertheless, if there is a fear that the federal government will hold back in education, it might not be a bad idea to consider transferring higher education for Africans from the federal list to the concurrent list. I feel that might meet the situation. As the Committee knows, there are two lists—the concurrent list and the solely federal list. If we put higher education for the Africans in the concurrent list, it would mean that if the federal government did not take steps to deal with higher education, it would be possible for the territories at least to try to take some steps of their own.
A more important suggestion arises from the criticisms of the freezing of the constitution. I thought there was a certain amount of validity about this criticism. I do not take so poor a view of our countrymen overseas as to believe that they will not advance on the road to partnership, but that is nevertheless a possible eventuality, and I believe the Africans have some fears on this point.


An intermittent review of the constitution would be a difficult matter because it would not lead to a stable constitution. We should find Southern Rhodesia, in particular, unwilling to accept the theory that, just when the constitution has settled down, it should all go back into the cockpit here to be discussed again. I wonder whether it would be possible, if we want to get the constitution accepted as smoothly as possible, to introduce some proviso for a fixed review in 10 years' time, if, say, two of the three territories made representation to that effect—and not otherwise.
Thirdly, I would make a small point which was only made to me at lunch time and which I have not had time to check. There is no mention at all of any Asian representation in the federation. There are not many Asians in that part of the world, but the Minister of State might find it worthwhile to look into the matter. I am quoting purely from memory, but I believe the Asians have some limited representation in the Nyasaland Government, and it may be possible to develop it federally, either directly or indirectly, if they desire it and if the Government feel it to be the right course.
Having seen these three territories at first hand, I am particularly an ardent advocate of federation. I make no apologies for it. I advocate it primarily, not for economic reasons, though I see those, nor for local political reasons, nor for any other immediate material ones. I advocate it because I believe that, taking the matter right out of the arena of the day-to-day conduct of our Empire, we have a magnificent chance here to do something quite new in the history of British Commonwealth development. That is the establishment of a multi-racial partnership form of Government.
Here we have races which are making a valuable contribution and living together. I have never yet seen any alternative suggestion to federation put forward which will give them such a chance. Indeed, it will be more than a chance. It will be an impetus to racial harmony, in the best sense of the word, so that this British Government will be the very first, as far as I know, to institute a system of genuine partnership in multi-racial government which will

guarantee that opportunities for all to get on, in the economic, social and political field, not depending in any way upon colour but depending only upon individual capacity to make a valuable contribution.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) will forgive me if I do not follow him, though I agree in substance with some of the points he has made. I think that we all agree that we are debating a matter of profound importance not merely to the people of Africa but to the people of the world. We should recognise that grave responsibility rests upon us as trustees for these territories to see that we develop them as efficiently as possible to increase supplies of raw materials and foodstuffs and, at the same time, that we do everything possible to raise the standard of living of all the people there.
Whatever our differences of opinion may be—and they are marked on both sides of the Committee—we all agree in principle on the desirability of federation. We only differ when it comes to the means to be employed. I speak with due modesty because I have spent only a few weeks in these territories in discussing the matter with many people, but I am encouraged to contribute to this debate because I find that people with even less knowledge than myself speak with great authority upon the subject.
We are all agreed, first of all, upon the need for federation. We are likewise agreed that our fundamental task is to promote the education, health and happiness of the people in the territories. I believe that as trustees for these territories we can only do that if we develop their economic resources. It is plainly Utopian to talk about education, health, and happiness, unless one provides the means to support them. To promote political democracy throughout these territories without at the same time providing the means to sustain it is to invite an inevitable dictatorship. Let us be under no illusion that if we condemn people permanently to poverty because of failure to develop those resources, dictatorship will find ample scope fox development within the territories.
I hope that in discussing this matter we shall endeavour at least to consider how best we can promote federation itself. We come then to the vexed question of how it is to be brought about—whether it is to be imposed or secured with consent. I am afraid that the question is not always posed very wisely, because the assumption is that if one is in favour of its imposition then one is inclined to become a diabolical dictator, but if one is against imposition one is angelic in one's belief in democracy.
The fact of the matter is that in practice we are imposing upon the people of these territories things which they resent as strongly as federation. If one discusses with African people some of the things we are putting into operation in their territories, one finds that they are more bitter against them in the concrete than they are against the federation proposals themselves. By way of illustration, I might mention that during all the talks which I had with African people—and they were not official talks—I found, even in territories under the administration of the Colonial Office, that there was great resentment against what we call de-stocking.
In our estimation many small-holdings are carrying far too much stock and consequently destroying the soil. In the name of good husbandry we are compelled to insist that the farmers should get rid of that stock and we have to impose that requirement. Therefore, it is not always a question of whether people consent to something. A reasonable justification for that action is that we are doing it for the good of the Africans themselves. The same thing applies to many of the irrigation schemes. Surely nobody here would suggest that when we provide irrigation in order to develop resources we are doing something inimical to African interests.
When I spoke to one African I asked him whether he would prefer to drink water from a brook or to drink water supplied by us from a pipe. He—and I understand it from his tradition—believed that it was far better to drink water from the brook, though all our health authorities know perfectly well that that is a sure means of spreading disease. We are compelled, therefore, to do things which we believe to be in the interests of the Africans though they resent them

It is true that a great body of African opinion is opposed to federation. Let there be no illusions about that. It is due to many reasons. I am speaking from what experience we had in those territories. When we arrived there, we knew very little about the original proposals at that stage because they had just been formulated. When we discussed these matters at our first meeting, there was readiness to enter into open discussion and not a great deal of opposition was shown; but after about a week or so there was a change, for some reason or another.
Anybody with experience in organisation could only suspect that a deliberate attempt was being made to close those people's minds against the proposals. It was so much the case that when we came to the last meeting at Nyasaland, instead of coming forward, as invariably they did previously, to present their memorandum to each one of us and then to read it, the people were adamant in their refusal to discuss the matter at all. I cannot imagine that people should have changed so markedly from one stage to another unless there had been an elaborate form of organisation.
We ourselves would not propagate any proposals. I can say conscientiously that we never endeavoured to get these people to accept them. It was fairly obvious that some people were interested in ensuring that these proposals should never be discussed. I think that is primarily due to the fact that from the time when this matter was first considered by the Bledisloe Commission and the idea of amalgamation was turned down, there has been a constant agitation among the African people themselves to oppose this proposal.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) wanted to know what is the urgency. My view, for what it is worth, is that unless federation is brought about within a very short space of time, there will be no hope of federation in the future. If these people are successful in resisting federation today, they will never be in favour of federation tomorrow.
Do not let us imagine that the evil is all on one side or the other. The Minister quoted extensively from statements by Mr. Stockwell and one or two others.


Some of the statements made by Sir Godfrey Huggins himself are not calculated to create an atmosphere in which it is possible to discuss these matters impartially. I should have thought that a man of his experience and status would be a little more cautious in his utterances.
Of course, it is true that some of these people oppose federation and some of them want white domination; but, believe me, there are people in this country who want domination. One has only to visit a hospital in Southern Rhodesia or some such place and witness the laving care and devotion given to the nursing of Africans, to realise that they are not all animated by some evil desire. On the other hand, do not let us have any illusion about this. There are people sowing discord among the Africans and who do not believe in partnership. They are convinced that if they can prevent federation, in the course of time it will be possible for them to gain the ascendancy by virtue of their numbers, and once they have acquired the ascendancy, instead of being a subject class they will become the ruling class in the territories.
If we believe in partnership and not domination, we have to consider how best that partnership can be promoted. I believe it can only be done along the lines of federation. A lot of people seem to have the impression that within a territory under our protection there is no colour bar and that democracy exists, but in fact the colour bar is just as marked in Northern Rhodesia as in Southern Rhodesia. It is true that Northern Rhodesia is held up as an example in some ways, but if we go to a post office in Northern Rhodesia we find that there is one entrance for the white people and another entrance for black people. The same thing happens on the buses. That sort of thing is operating today.
If anybody suggests that we should take upon ourselves the complete responsibility for those territories, let us also deny the right of self-government to the white people themselves in those territories and let us govern them completely from here. Otherwise, what are we doing? Under our aegis we are making it possible for a limited number of people, in the Copper Belt for example, to form a trade union of white people and to deny Africans the

opportunity of obtaining a higher standard of living. This is happening in our territories.
I must be perfectly candid and impartial in this matter. Some of those practices are in operation in Southern Rhodesia, but I am confident that, as a result of experiments carried out there, in the long run political democracy will develop there more rapidly than in many other cases. I know a little place not 20 miles from Salisbury where African people are being educated—not only the ordinary sort of education, but they are also being trained as builders, carpenters and in handicrafts. They were building their own houses in that territory, and the class of house was such that any middle-class person in this country would be proud to live in one.
Does anybody imagine that we can create these circumstances without transforming the mental outlook of those people? Once people become conscious that they are indispensable to the functioning of an economic system, no power on earth will stop them acquiring political democracy. I know that I am likely to hear the retort that in South Africa there has been a certain amount of economic advancement and that the people there have not enjoyed political freedom. But I am confident that unless the South African Government take note of what is happening, nothing but a revolution can ensue.
If we are talking in terms of national evolution, I am sure that with economic development we shall find a reflection of it in a more enlightened political outlook of the Africans, and when they acquire that they will feel in no sense inferior to the white man. It is because I believe that through federation it will be possible to develop those economic resources which will produce the skill and the learning which will make it possible for those people to enjoy this political power, that I have spoken.
I trust that in a matter of such great Importance as this, we shall at least lift it above mere political party strife. So much is involved in it; and I hope that our attitude will not be determined by some particular word here or there in the constitution, and that we shall not argue, as they apparently argued in another place, about whether it should be "differential" or "detrimental" or whether it


should be "representation" of "recommendation." These important matters are seen out of all perspective if those are the sort of things upon which we concentrate.
In so far as we are all anxious to do the best we can for these people, whether they be white or black or an intermediate colour—and there are plenty of those—I should like to see a commission of Ministers from both sides of the House—people with a high sense of their responsibility—go to meet representatives from these other territories. I should like to see them take these proposals, examine them together, and see whether they could not come to an agreement which it would be possible for the African people to accept in the belief that we were interested, not merely in promoting either their exploitation or the interests of this country, but in the welfare of the people throughout the Territories that are now under discussion.
For those reasons, I sincerely hope that we shall at least recognise that in our respective parties we are all sincere, whatever may be our differences in approach.

6.51 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): It was very fortunate that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) succeeded in catching the eye of the Chair this afternoon. It enabled us to listen to a well-informed and helpful speech from someone who knows the conditions on the spot.
I am intervening in this debate only for one reason. I am leaving on Tuesday for an official visit to Central Africa and I should like to touch on one or two considerations which I have particularly in mind. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be replying to the various points made in the debate and it is quite right that that should be so, for we must remember—and in the welter of arguments about the interests of Africans in the two Northern Territories it is sometimes forgotten—that in Southern Rhodesia, too, there is opposition to this scheme.
Here again, as in the Northern Territories, I believe this opposition to be very largely and very often due to misconception and, indeed, ignorance; but

the fact remains that in Southern Rhodesia opposition is based on the fact that the scheme gives too much and not too little to the African.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks that a good deal of this opposition is due to ignorance of the scheme. How, then, can he explain the fact that the two African representatives from Southern Rhodesia, having gone to the Conference and heard and learned all about the scheme, went back to Southern Rhodesia and there became its leading opponents?

Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. Member has missed my point. My point was that the white opposition in Southern Rhodesia was based on misconception and ignorance in the same way as was the African opposition in the Northern Territories. It is the fact—as one of my hon. Friends mentioned—that extremists in both communities are dissatisfied that leads me to believe that we might have hit upon a happy medium.
The object of my mission to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland is twofold. First, I want to test the opinion of all the communities—including the Asians—to try to find out how much is true of the things that have been said and written in this country about the state of opinion in Central Africa. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that he has indications that opinion is already changing. I want to learn in what terms it is changing and how much it is changing. I hope that when we next debate this matter I shall be in a position to give the House my personal, first-hand impressions of the state of mind of the Africans in those two Northern Territories, after they have had the time to study the White Paper in greater detail.
My second duty is to make it clear to all concerned that Her Majesty's Government consider the introduction of a federal scheme to be of the highest importance at the present time. In that respect I want to accelerate the change of opinion among the Africans. If the grave doubts which have been referred to tonight really exist among the Africans—and, of course, we know that to a certain extent they do—my purpose is to try to convince them how solid and far-reaching are the safeguards provided by this scheme.
I propose to deal with only one aspect of the matter tonight. Whatever views may be held about the anxieties of the African community in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in relation to political development and the dangers of white domination, I believe that in the case of the overwhelming majority their preponderating fear centres upon the possibility of the loss of their land. As the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said in the debate on colonial affairs last week: "Among Africans, land is life." I thought that was a very telling phrase.
Ninety-five per cent. of the population of Northern Rhodesia is purely agricultural and in Nyasaland 2 million out of a total African population of 2,400,000 are entirely dependent upon agriculture. A threat to their land outrages their spiritual beliefs and also touches the heart of their very existence. That is why the distorted and mischievous propaganda that their land is threatened under this scheme has done so much damage and has made the Africans so apprehensive.
For these reasons, I should like to emphasise here and now—and I shall do so again at every possible opportunity when I meet the Africans—that under this scheme they need have no fear for their land. Their rights are fully secure. That has been made clear in the House and elsewhere on many occasions. My right hon. Friend stressed it in the statement which he made very soon after he took office. The draft scheme contains the most explicit provisions in chapter II—provisions which carry out the pledge given at Victoria Falls.
I have heard it argued that if the vast majority of the Africans in the two territories are largely interested in this issue only in so far as it affects their land, it is because they are educationally and politically backward. It may be said: "You must wait until they are further developed, when they will know enough to be able to say whether or not this is a good scheme." If that is the argument, surely it cannot be said at the same time that the overwhelming mass of opinion in the Northern Territories of Central Africa today is against the scheme.
Now I turn to the question which has given rise to doubts in the minds of many people and which has formed the subject of correspondence in the Press and of several speeches today. In view

of the apparent reluctance of the Africans in the two Northern Territories to come into the scheme, it has been asked whether it would not be better to wait or abandon the scheme altogether.
I believe the answer to both those arguments is the same. If this scheme, or something very like it, fails to materialise now, I doubt whether any form of federation will succeed in the future. On the other hand, if the proposal for a federation is not the answer to the problem in Central Africa, what is the alternative? No one who has spoken in this debate in criticism of the scheme, and no one who has written to the papers attacking it, has, so far as I know, put forward any plan which covers the whole of the problem and which would meet the dangers which would flow from a failure to federate now.
Let us consider for a moment what would be the effect, in the three territories, of a breakdown now. In Southern Rhodesia, in the frustration and disappointment resulting from a breakdown, the eyes of those who are now looking towards Britain for leadership would inevitably be turned in other directions. Where will that lead us in the long run? Is that in the interests of the 2 million-odd Africans living in Southern Rhodesia? Is that what we want? Again, who can tell what effect it may ultimately have on the position of Northern Rhodesia.
In that territory many hopes have been placed on the achievement of federation and on putting into effect the idea of partnership in European and African affairs. The abandonment of federation, with its resultant discouragement to all those who are working for partnership between the races, would bring nothing but frustration and bitterness with disastrous consequences for all concerned. Even in Nyasaland, I believe, those effects will be felt.
Quite recently, a missionary with 40 years' experience of Northern Rhodesia stated that in his opinion the dangers of not establishing federation were far greater than if it were put into effect. Then, of course, the economic arguments for federation, into which I cannot enter, have taken on a note of urgency in that evidence is accumulating every day that much-needed economic development is already being hampered by the


present uncertainty, particularly in regard to the provision of capital.
In all these proposals it is essential to keep sight of the realities of the situation. We are not framing an ideal constitution in a vacuum. We are called upon to decide what we can best do for the Central Africa of today; how best to organise its resources for the material and spiritual welfare of all its inhabitants, taking into account their habits and prejudices, not necessarily as we should like them to be, but as they are. Our minds are certainly not closed to any suggestions for improvements in this scheme. We have put forward these proposals as the best practical solution to the problems of Central Africa as they now confront us.
In the course of my trip over the next months, I shall have the views which have been expressed by hon. Members this evening very fully in my mind, and here I would like to say how much we welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is going to find it possible to take part of his holiday in Central Africa. I can assure him that he will be given every facility to see every-things he wants to see and to meet everybody he wants to meet in these territories. I shall start with the belief that, in the absence of any alternative hopeful outcome, we must surely proceed with this great plan initiated by the Labour Government, supported and elaborated by Her Majesty's present advisers and accepted by the Governments of all four territories.
If we carry out the present scheme with this great weight of support behind it, and, we hope, supported by all sections of opinion in the territories themselves, we shall, I believe, start a new era of what I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to as political, social and economic advance in those territories. But if we allow it to fail now, this opportunity may slip through our fingers and be lost for ever. It is in this firm conviction that I am approaching my forthcoming task in Central Africa, and I hope that in so doing I shall take with me the support and good will of most hon. Members.

7.4 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: May I start by saying that we on these benches wish the Minister of State a pleasant and an educative trip to Central Africa, and

that we hope he will not only look at the things that some people want him to look at, but will look at the things he ought to see, and will not allow himself in his enthusiasm for this scheme to be carried away by other people's emotions.
I rise at this rather late hour only to make it clear that I am representing a point of view within this party which is considerably different from that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North (Mr. Coldrick) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid). I take the point of view which I think commands greater support in my party and which is expressed by those of us holding it with as much sincerity as the point of view held and expressed by other hon. Members.
The unanimity we have had today shows that everybody is agreed that the principal thing that attracts us to Central African federation is that it is to bring opportunities of political, social and economic advancement to the African people. Of course, it is also to improve the whole economic life of the country. It is to produce better conditions for the Europeans as well, but every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has stressed the fact that the prime purpose of Central African federation is to see to it that the African people themselves are to have these opportunities for the development of their political, social and economic ambitions and rights.
I am sure that if he were here the Secretary of State for the Colonies would not mind me quoting from HANSARD of 4th March this year, when he quoted with evident approval these words from Command 8233:
The ultimate objective of all three Governments is broadly the same, namely, the economic, social and political advancement of the Africans in partnership with the Europeans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 242.]
The Minister of State himself, as reported in "The Times" on Monday last, during a speech he made over the week-end, used the following words:
Much of the criticism levelled against the proposals so far had been based on the assumption that they were designed to secure the permanent domination of the European minority in these territories. This was a conception which Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the three Central African territories had all firmly repudiated. All four


Governments firmly believed that only on a basis of partnership between the races could these territories progress.
These are noble and significant words. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
Until the change of Government in this country, the Africans had been given no lead in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to accept federation. In his forthcoming visit … it must be his duty to help to give the Africans the lead for which they have been waiting and to explain why Her Majesty's Government saw in the scheme something which would give an opportunity of social, economic and political advancement which they could get in no other way.
Unfortunately, there is not complete unity on the part of those who support the idea of Central African federation as to what the attitude should be towards the African demand for social, economic and political advancement. The London Committee of the United Central Africa Association, a body which presses for the imposition in Central Africa of federation on the Africans, publishes a pamphlet called "Central African Federation—The Only Way to Partnership Between the Races." That pamphlet says:
The leading feature of the present federation proposal is such as to guarantee that no right, privilege or opportunity which the Africans now enjoy will be abated or circumscribed in any way.
The operative words are:
which the Africans now enjoy.
There is no suggestion here that the underlying purpose of Central African federation is the social, political and economic advancement of the African people. Of course, the Government are not to be held responsible for those words, but we must not accept them as coming from a body of no importance. We cannot ignore this body as a mere propaganda organisation of no importance, save to spend someone else's money. It is a serious organisation set up in this country by vested interests to influence people on the question of federation, and not one word is mentioned in their propaganda that the underlying differences to the African people are those which have been described.
This statement denies the words of Sir Gilbert Rennie, a great administrator, who never ceased to advance the claims

of partnership between the peoples. He said:
A partnership implies gradual and steady progress on all fronts until in due course they (the Africans) can take their full part with the other sections of the community in the economic and political life of the territory. Partnership implies proper provisions to both Europeans and Africans and proper safeguards for their rights and interests.
Even my hon. Friends with whom I do not agree support that point of view.
What then is going wrong? Why is it that the African people, through their representatives, having got these declarations of the intentions of Central African federation, oppose it? The statement has been made that there is no such thing as Central African opinion, but that argument will not wash. We cannot, on one occasion, praise the experience, intelligence and selfless devotion of Africans when they support us, and on another occasion say that they represent no opinion when they oppose us. That is exactly what is taking place.
A meeting took place on 22nd June of this year and is reported in the "Rhodesia Herald." It was addressed by Mr. J. Z. Savanhu and Mr. J. M. Nkomo, the two Southern Rhodesian African representatives who came to this country for the Lancaster House Conference, the two gentlemen who were praised in the debate in the House on 29th April by the former Colonial Secretary for coming to this country and giving their experience and their advice.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): Is the hon. Member answering the question as to who said there was no African opinion?

Sir L. Plummer: The Secretary of State for the Colonies this afternoon said that there was no such thing as Central African opinion.

Mr. Hopkinson: On the contrary. My right hon. Friend said exactly the contrary. He said that it was a view which he could not accept for a moment.

Sir L. Plummer: My interpretation was that he made it quite clear that from his point of view African opinion was something that he did not accept as being the representative view of those three countries. It was a view that was


shared by certain of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. Let us see what the Africans say. This point as to African opinion is very important. Mr. Nkomo said at this meeting that the present proposals for federation were only for the Europeans. He said:
We appreciate the great economic advantages that federation will bring, but because of the present situation in Southern Rhodesia I doubt whether these benefits will come to Africans as well as Europeans. … Apart from discriminatory legislation, there was an unwritten law that assumed that Africans were inferior to Europeans.
Those are the words.
What has gone wrong? Why is it that these people who were wise, experienced fellows on 29th April, 1952, are non-representative of African opinion on 22nd June? What has taken place? What has brought about this change? We have had it suggested that it is because of distorted propaganda of some wicked red organisation like the Fabian Colonial Bureau which is pumping out phrases like "informed African opinion" to such a degree that the Africans are now transformed. It is not so. The seeds of opposition against Central African federation are being planted in the minds of the African people by the protagonists of Central African federation themselves. I propose to give an example.
African workers in industry in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia believe that their advancement must come partly through the activities of their trade unions. It is a view which is held by white workers in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, who themselves are banded together—those who work on the railway—in the Rhodesian Railway Workers' Union—this covers white railway workers in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia alike. In Northern Rhodesia the African railway workers have a union of their own, the North Rhodesian African Railway Workers' Trade Union. It is right and proper that we should pay tribute to the liberal policy of Northern Rhodesia and to the advanced view compared with other territories, of the Northern Rhodesian employers in helping the African people to establish a trade union which is fully recognised as competent and quite militant.
In Southern Rhodesia the position is almost completely opposite. The African railwaymen, too, have a union, the Rhodesian Railways African Employees' Association, which may be described in vulgar language as a "company" or "stooge" union. It does not have the support of the majority of the African workers, and they do not like it. They have been forming branches of the Northern Rhodesian Railways Workers' Union in Southern Rhodesia, in protest against the conditions under which they are living. The organisers of the Northern Rhodesian Railway union decided that what they wanted to do was to go to Southern Rhodesia and discuss with the newly formed branches the future plan of operations.
For that purpose, Mr. John Sichalwe, the General Secretary of the union, and Mr. Dixon Konkola, the President of the union, went to the District Commissioner in Northern Rhodesia and asked for permission to go. The Commissioner said it was quite legitimate business and gave them a permit, and off they went. They arrived at Victoria Falls on 22nd June last. As soon as they stepped into Southern Rhodesia they were detained by the immigration officer, although they were going on perfectly normal, legitimate business in propagating their trade union.
They were taken to a camp and kept there for three days. They were not allowed to move without the presence of an African detective. At the end of the third day, or at the beginning of the fourth, they were given 12 hours' notice to quit, and they were expelled. Why? Because they went down into Southern Rhodesia to say to the Southern Rhodesians, "You are entitled to exactly the same privileges and rights as railwaymen as the railwaymen in Northern Rhodesia."
This is the sort of thing that makes Africans doubt when people say, "There is partnership here for you. There is economic, social and political advantage for you in this federation." The people who were arrested and deported when they left one country to go into another are the very people who are being asked by the Government to accept the virtues and the values of Central African federation. The Northern Rhodesian district officer who gave them permission to go


to Southern Rhodesia, and at the same time informed the immigration officer in Southern Rhodesia that they were coming, is probably the very man deputed to explain the advantages of Central African federation to these people. This is not alien propaganda that is making people say: "This is not good enough"; the very repressive and retrogressive acts of people in Southern Rhodesia are responsible for it.
We ought to look very carefully indeed at the way in which these people are behaving. It gives very considerable support to the argument that we are advancing, these proposals for an African Affairs Board which should be very strongly supported by an independent chairman appointed with the consent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He should have considerable powers to see that this discrimination is not continued.
The idea has been promulgated that the Southern Rhodesian workers do not want to be transferred to the rule of South Africa. I think that is right. But the Northern Rhodesian Africans do not want to be transferred under the rule of Southern Rhodesia either. There are degrees of racial discrimination, and the Northern Rhodesian African considers himself to be much better off than the Southern Rhodesian.
What is going on in Northern Rhodesia in relation to the attitude to the African people through the labour administration? Why is it that a decision is being taken to transfer the labour adviser from Broken Hill to Lusaka? Why is the successor of Mr. Comrie to be centred on Lusaka instead of looking after the job on the spot in Broken Hill?
What is happening is causing a hardening of the attitude of Northern Rhodesia towards the labour unions which are still very young movements and which cannot face the veiled hostility of the Government? Why is it that labour officers are being appointed who have no experience of the trade union movement? Is it that the Northern Rhodesian Government have come to the conclusion that they are to have federation imposed upon them and that therefore they are soon to be placed under the Southern Rhodesian labour administration which is far more restrictive?
Is it that, or is it that already a psychological change has taken place in the attitude of the Government of Northern Rhodesia as a result of the change of Government at Westminster, and that they are responding to the well-known Tory reaction against trade unionism wherever it is? Why is it that a generous, bold, intelligent attitude towards labour unions which has been encouraged since 1945 now looks as though it has been reversed? These questions have to be answered because, until they are, there will be nothing but suspicion in the minds of the Africans, put there not by agitators but by the activities of the white people in the territories.
Finally, what is the hurry about federation? What is the busting rush about it? Why have we now to get into a situation where we have declared our determination to go on whether for good or ill? Conditions may alter, nevertheless, men may be forced, with their backs against the wall, to defend an attitude of mind which is outmoded and outdated. At whose behest are we rushing on with it?
The position is that, with the suspicion there is in the minds of the Africans, with the doubt there is in the minds of a considerable portion of the European population, this will not work. Well, put it off for a few years. These African people are better off under the control of the Colonial Office in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland than they may well be under federation. There is no hurry.
Our responsibility is to see to it that the political, social and economic advancement of the African people is not an empty phrase but a pledge that we propose to fulfil. Let us satisfy the Africans that that is what we intend to do. Let us, for example, see to it that they will not be let down in the end. Let us do that and perhaps in a few years time their minds will come round to the conception of a federation which is acceptable to them. Anything short of that is a betrayal of our responsibility and of our trust.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said that he did not think that the Northern Rhodesian Africans would wish to go to Southern Rhodesia. That


is not the information I have been given, and I think there would be considerable doubt as to that view. In fact, many of the Nyasaland Africans often go to Southern Rhodesia via Northern Rhodesia.
Reference was made by the hon. Member to the complex question of African opinion, and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) also referred to it in considerable detail. I am not sure how accurately we can decide what eventually African opinion will be. If, as I gathered the right hon. and learned Member said, African opinion might eventually come down fully against the scheme and then federation would not take place, would he go so far as to be certain that we should have to accept the African opinion so expressed, since, by so doing, many people would be put at a considerable disadvantage? It is extremely difficult to decide whether African representation and African opinion is not being led along the wrong road by mischievous propaganda which may have the ultimate effect of ruining the great beneficial scheme of federation.

Mr. Sorensen: I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard this afternoon the statement made that the civil servants are busy expounding and recommending this scheme, as is right. If that be so, is there anything untoward or illegitimate if others try to point out the defects in this scheme?

Mr. Harris: That would depend entirely on the motives. Of course, I fully support what the Minister said about the way this propaganda is being put over. What perturbs me is that in travelling through the territories of Africa one must recognise that many Africans cannot know the day-to-day circumstances of a scheme of this kind.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery certainly conveyed to me that if African opinion comes down against this scheme, federation will not go forward. Therefore, every hon. Member must recognise that it is vitally important that all African opinion should be truly representative of the whole body of Africans who will eventually have to consider this scheme. That worries me very much in trying to visualise the future of Central Africa. I, too, am pleased that the Minister of State has taken part in this debate and we all welcome his forth-

coming visit to Central Africa. I am certain that much of what is being said today will help him in his deliberations there.
It has been asked why there is any need for urgency. I think most people in Central Africa recognise that a scheme such as this has been mooted for the better part of 20 years, so there is no truth in the suggestion that we are treating it as extremely urgent. We have now reached the stage where the scheme will succeed or not, and any suggestion that we can put this off for a few more years must mean that we ourselves are in doubt as to its real benefits and hesitate to put it into operation. Federation is the soundest and almost the only way of safeguarding British connection with Central Africa and of maintaining and promoting a working partnership between the blacks and the whites which will enable the Africans to improve their own capacities and skills.
I think we all recognise that the fundamental problem in Central Africa is that of racial relations. Many Britons and Europeans have made this region of Central Africa their home and many have been born there. They have invested their labour, their skill and their savings in developing that part of the continent, with the help, I fully agree, of the Africans themselves. It should, therefore, be remembered that before the advent of the Europeans some half century ago, the Africans had to scratch up a poor subsistence from the soil without any hope or idea of progress towards the standards of Western civilisation as we know it.
As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said, there are today great areas remote from European enterprise in which the population still live at bare subsistence level. It is the European who has provided, and still provides, the urge, the capital, the technical ability and the powers of organisation. In short, the European has provided the leadership idea which has raised this region in Central Africa from barbarism to the beginnings of economic and social advancement and which has enabled a transformation to take place in local standards of life.
At the same time, Central Africa contributes very largely in copper, chrome, asbestos, lead, zinc, tobacco and many


other dollar-saving commodies to the benefit of the sterling area. This remarkable achievement has produced wealth which is now enabling the African to take a fuller share of profits and privileges from our civilisation.
British tradition demands that this broad road of opportunity should remain open to all Africans as they advance from their tribal life up to the same level of civilisation as ours. The aim and policy of racial segregation to the south is, of course, to close that road. It is a policy which is, I feel, inspired by the white man's fear of being swamped by the great African majority and by his anxiety lest black competition should in due course drag down his livelihood and standards. The European in Central Africa also has fears, but he is willing to attempt to arrive at a more hopeful solution in this policy of federation or partnership.
But partnership must overcome two considerable obstacles if it is to succeed. First, it has to overcome the white settler's fear of domination by the African majority; and secondly, it has to overcome the African's backwardness and his fear also of white domination. Only a sustained economic development can surmount these formidable obstacles without full partnership.
Sufficient wealth must be produced to raise the African's level of living and his standards of health and education without, at the same time, lowering the standard of life that is required for maintaining the white civilisation. This can be achieved only by continued wise investment of large sums of money, which in turn demands a confidence in the Central African Territories. That confidence must be obtained by going forward with our general federation proposals.

Mr. J. Johnson: A fair comment upon what the hon. Member is saying is that one of the main objects of federation is to provide political stability and to induce large sums of capital investment. Where is the money to come from? Is it American capital that the hon. Member envisages?

Mr. Harris: It would be a good thing if eventually some American capital also were able to go to Central Africa. That

could only be for the ultimate good of the territories.

Mr. Sorensen: Why not now?

Mr. Harris: I agree that a certain amount has already gone there. All I am saying is that we must ensure the future security of the Central African Territories in the form of this combined federation and that we must cast no doubts about the future of Central Africa if we expect this increased capital to be placed in those territories. Only that kind of guarantee and racial harmony can be the basis for the success of our federation proposals.
The idea of lowering European standards to the African level, instead of raising African standards to the European level, are, of course, reactionary and impracticable; but without the Europeans and their dynamic progressive forces, the economic development would undoubtedly be destroyed, and with it ultimately the hopes of the African's progress and prosperity.
Central Africa must be recognised as the rightful home of all its present inhabitants, whether white or black. British opinion should, therefore, realise its imperial trust in Central Africa as one of providing security and incentives to the white community equally with ensuring the same safeguards and opportunity for the Africans.
Federation will remove the first obstacle to partnership by giving to the white Rhodesians the sense of security and responsibility which will ensure continued co-operation in the advancement of the Africans. I am certain also that the rejection of our federation proposals would harden their attitude and would eventually convince them that they were more than ever in danger.
The white Northern Rhodesians now feel justified, as a great contribution to progress, in asking for a further gesture of confidence and a still greater share of self-government by the establishment of a federal Government with common services for the three territories, in which already the self-governing people of Southern Rhodesia have a bigger contribution to make to their less developed neighbours. Federation is the gesture of confidence which is able not only to answer Northern Rhodesian aspirations,


but also to remove the fear of, and to encourage the attitude towards, partnership amongst the European population.
Nyasaland also is vitally concerned, not only from the standpoint of safeguarding agriculture but for the other industries established by European initiative and capital. If Nyasaland were not included in the federation, undoubtedly the finance for industrial development would be much more difficult to find.
We must give more than a gesture towards Central African federation. We must get down to it and must recognise our responsibility, and be prepared to see it through. There must be the strongest guarantees in the federal constitution that the ideal of partnership is to be preserved and pursued after federation has been brought about. To me it is evident that the present federation proposals offer security to the Africans as well as to the Europeans, and thus provide the political conditions which ultimately will be most favourable to inter-racial partnership.
Federation can also do much to encourage the prerequisite economic conditions for partnership. The acceptance of our proposals will undoubtedly speed the economic development of the region, upon which the ultimate successful partnership and progress of the Africans and the Europeans alike depend.

7.40 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I think that today we have a very important function to perform. We have to prepare the way for the conference which we now understand is to take place next January. I should say there are two main subjects to which we have to direct our attention. One is African opinion on this matter, because it has been discussed very much in this country as to how that opinion is to be gauged, as to how far we are to take it into account and how far it should be decisive in any decision we ourselves may ultimately reach.
The other task is to examine the proposals in the White Paper and see how far we can honestly and honourably support them. I hope very much that none of us here will feel that because we have said something at some time we are bound to stick to it actually to the letter. This is far too important, if we have fresh proposals put before us, to allow any

question of pride, or personal reputation, or anything of that kind, or even of party reputation, to stand in the way. We are discussing something today which, in its way, is quite as important—or perhaps one degree removed in importance—for the peace and wellbeing of mankind as our discussions on N A T.O. re-armament and so forth.
With those considerations in mind, I should like to say one or two words on this matter of African opinion. It is quite true that it is not easy in a state of society where one does not have a direct franchise to have a reliable method of gauging African opinion. On the other hand, there are representative institutions in the territories which are employed for public purposes, and it seems to me that if we have such machinery we should make proper use of it and should accord to the results a validity which is of considerable importance. Having gauged that opinion, we must decide to what degree it is to be effective in reaching cur decision.
I should like to put this point, if I may have the attention of the Under-Secretary of State, because he seems very much tied to his brief—

Mr. J. Foster: Not at all. I can repeat what the hon. Lady has said. She has just said that we ought to take notice of established measures of public opinion—

Mrs. White: I can remember my own speech, thank you very much. I am glad to notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman can do two things at once.
I wish to put this very important point to him, as it concerns his own Department. If in this very difficult situation in Central Africa Her Majesty's Government decide that, in spite of a very strong expression of African opinion to the contrary, they will nevertheless proceed with federal proposals, would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he might be setting a very dangerous precedent if we were asked at some future stage what we are to do if the Government of the Union of South Africa asked for the return of Protectorate Territories? I hope very much that that point will be borne in mind in any action taken by Her Majesty's Government, because one might very easily cut the ground from under


one's feet by taking a decision in those circumstances which might be very contrary to what we might wish to do in other circumstances in territories not so very far away.
I would not disagree for a moment that there has been some ill-informed and some irresponsible propaganda in the territories on this matter. I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State that the leaders of public opinion in the territories are urging their followers to study the proposals in the White Paper. I have been much impressed with some of the criticisms of federation already made by the leaders in Southern Rhodesia of whom my hon. Friend has spoken. They noticed, for example, that one of the advantages of federation for this country would be its possible effect on the dollar gap. That did not escape them. They asked whether the economic advantages they could see might accrue would necessarily be of such benefit to the Africans as was sometimes maintained.
Members of the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia over here pointed out their primary objections to federation at this time is that they feel it is being put upon them at a time when they are just beginning—and only just beginning—to find their own way politically. They say, "It is too soon, we are only just gaining our own political confidence. Here, when we are just emerging, you at once put upon us a constitution in which we have no guarantees that we shall be able to take any further steps beyond the ones actually inshrined in the constitution for immediate application."
That brings me to the proposed constitution. One of the reasons why African opinion—I am speaking now of responsible, informed African opinion—is so much disturbed is that they are aware of the comments being made on these proposals by the European politicians in Southern and Northern Rhodesia, by the leader writers in European journals in those countries and in the neighbouring territory of the Union of South Africa. These educated and well-informed Africans in the territories are not unaware of what is being said concerning these proposals, and it is because of these comments—I know from correspondence that I am receiving myself—that they have very serious doubts

as to the true strength of the safeguards which are to be enshrined in the constitution.
The Minister of State said that he is going out and will explain the solid strength of the safeguards—I believe that was the phrase he used. I would accept the Minister as a person of intellectual honesty. If he looks at the proposed safeguards and reads the comments made upon them, first by persons in this country of the standing and experience of Lord Hailey—there are very few people now alive who have had more experience in the actual working of constitutions and experience of complex states—and if, on the other hand, he reads the kind of comments in leading articles in newspapers in the territories, written by persons with first-hand knowledge, not, I may say, by long-haired Fabians, surely he must have some doubts as to the real value of the safeguards in that constitution.
I am not saying this in any unfriendly spirit, because I fully realise that a great deal of work and thought has been put into these proposals and, within a certain framework, with some of the improvements which have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, they are probably as reasonable as one could obtain in the present state of affairs in these territories.
I shall not spend too much time on this, but will mention briefly the main safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to explain during his visit. Is he really satisfied that there will be an adequate safeguard where the major interests of the Africans are concerned? I know it is perfectly true that land legislation is to be kept within the territorial ambit, but there are other very important subjects with which I do not wish to take time to deal in detail. I will quote the opinion of Sir Stewart Gore-Brown, who was until recently the member representing African interests and has life-long experience of the territories. He says:
One cannot help doubting whether, judging by past history, the well-worn device of prescribing 'reserved subjects' is even likely to work in the way intended by those who propose it. For as soon as the safeguards are sufficiently effective to become irksome to the people in power, the latter will assuredly find some means of getting rid of them.
When we consider the veto which will be reserved in certain circumstances to


Her Majesty's Government, what is likely to be the experience? In minor matters no doubt there will be modifications after correspondence with the appropriate Departments in this country, but in major matters, as Lord Hailey pointed out so clearly, if there was a really strong European opinion in the government which had an overwhelming European majority; if that government threatened to resign; if there were such a narrow basis to political life in the territories—as there would be for many years—that no alternative Government could be found; is it not perfectly obvious that the European majority would be in a position to blackmail any future Secretary of State, and that no Secretary of State would risk the hiatus which might then ensue?

Mr. Hopkinson: Mr. Hopkinson indicated
dissent.

Mrs. White: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I repeat that I am not quoting from my limited experience, but from the greater experience of persons who have fuller knowledge than I in this matter.
Again we have the African Affairs Board, which is the most positive of the safeguards, because most of the others are completely negative safeguards. They will ensure that things do not get any worse, but they do not ensure that they will get any better. The African Affairs Board has some positive possibilities. But surely it is significant that it is precisely against the establishment of the African Affairs Board that the strongest criticism has been made, most particularly in Southern Rhodesia.
I think hon. Members opposite have been as much shocked as I was to find that the very strongest criticism of this safeguard for African interests has been made in Southern Rhodesia, actually by the Minister responsible for Native Affairs in Southern Rhodesia. I ask hon. Members who are urging that we should hurry with these federation proposals, what would be their attitude, what confidence would they have in these proposals, when all round them they heard this kind of criticism from persons who will be in fact, according to this constitution, very much in the majority for any forseeable period?

Mr. J. Foster: Why does the hon. Member say that the Minister responsible for Native Affairs said this?

Mrs. White: I quote from "The Times" of 28th June on the debate in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament, which took place between 23rd June and 27th June—I have not the exact date on which the Minister for Native Affairs spoke—in which he said that the African Affairs Board was the only reason why a referendum might go against federation. He thought the conference in October should nullify this proposal and meet Southern Rhodesian wishes.

Sir Richard Acland: The Government did not know about that.

Mrs. White: As I say, I suggest—

Mr. Hopkinson: Would not the hon. Member welcome the existence of an African Affairs Board which would safeguard the interests of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia as well, and which does not exist today?

Mrs. White: I would welcome it, if I thought it would be effective and if I were certain it would remain an effective body in the Government. But surely the very fact that a person in this position in the existing Government of Southern Rhodesia makes this kind of criticism—apart from the most illuminating remarks of Sir Godfrey Huggins in this matter—makes one a little dubious of the part which this African Affairs Board is likely to be allowed to play in any future federal government. Anyone with experience of administrative bodies knows that there are ways and means of putting them into a back-water if they prove inconvenient to the elected body. It seems to me, therefore, that there are good grounds for the doubts and suspicions of Africans as to the adequacy and efficacy of the safeguards on which the Minister of State seems to place so much reliance.
I emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), that we on this side feel very strongly indeed that there should be provided some way whereby there could be some review of this constitution at some future time. I was interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), that one might possibly say, if two out of the three territories wished to have a review within a certain period, that that might be one way of including in the constitution something which might not be repugnant


to opinion in the Central African Territories. But I am certain we cannot hope to have African adherence to proposals whereby under the existing suggestion a European majority can, perfectly legally and effectively, place an absolute barrier against any further advance of Africans in the federation government. That is the constitutional position as suggested in the White Paper.
The most that we in the House can do is to safeguard the existing six to eight African representatives out of the 35. That we can do. But if we agree to the constitution as proposed today, we shall be absolutely powerless to do more than that at any future stage to keep pace with the advance of the Africans politically. I think some safeguard of that kind is absolutely vital if Her Majesty's Government hope to have any support from the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House.
The other point raised by my right hon. Friend, of placing the conditions for the franchise for the federation elections in the hands of the territories and not in the hands of the federation government, is one well worthy of consideration. Because once again we have the fear in African minds that the predominant European members in that federation government would ensure that the qualifications for electing members was such that their chances of advance would be very greatly limited.
I hope that the Government will consider very carefully what they are doing in this matter, and that they will not hasten forward for any reason of prestige, or even necessarily of consistency. Certainly there are times when one might do harm by failing to take resolute and early action. I do realise that there have been incidents, even in this sphere, in which the late Government might have taken action earlier and more decisively, and achieved better results. But the contrary is sometimes true. It is sometimes better to hasten slowly. I believe that this is one of those cases in which it would be better to wait until the Africans, who are only just beginning their political life, have reached a point where they have a little more confidence.
It is a very difficult position. If we now put into the constitution what will really satisfy African aspirations, and be

appropriate to their position 10 years hence, we shall never get it accepted by the European settlers. That is the dilemma. If we do not put that in, then we shall not get the support of the Africans and there may well be very severe racial tension in those territories which would go a long way to negate any confidence which purveyors of capital might feel in their future.
So one is on the horns of a dilemma. It is extremely difficult at this point of time to fashion a constitution which is acceptable both to European opinion and just to the Africans. Therefore I suggest we would be more likely to reach a point where that dilemma might be overcome if we waited, not necessarily for very long, but until the Africans had more confidence in their own political advance in their own territories.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I start by apologising for being unable to be present for the greater part of this debate because of other business. I am sure that the Committee will realise that it was because of the somewhat tense situation in one of the Standing Committees that I was unable to be here. Equally, I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for not hearing the whole of his remarks, though I heard most of the earlier part of his speech.
He was making a powerful case for the federation project. I should like to elaborate the three points which he seemed to regard as the most prominent. They were, first, the economic value of federation to the three territories concerned. It has been clear for a long time that there are immense advantages in any circumstances in increasing the sphere available for an economic national unit.
This was expressed most clearly by Colonel S. Gore-Brown in a pamphlet which he wrote for the Fabian Colonial Bureau in 1944. He said:
In the first place it is now generally recognised that modern conditions call for large rather than small units of government. In the world today it is intolerable that small isolated communities should be in a position to check the development of transport, for instance.
Then he gave an instance from his own extensive experience in that part of the world. He said:
The Salisbury—Lusaka road some years ago provided an illustration of this point—


the Southern Rhodesian portion of the road was admirable in every way, but after it crossed the Zambesi and entered Northern Rhodesia the road became almost impassable.
That is a practical example, in his submission, of the economic value to the territories which federation would bring about. I am certain that of all the things that Africa need—leaving aside capital investment, which is essential—better communications, improved power supplies and water supplies are the key to the future of Africa. As I see the position, federation will assist to provide these for the three territories concerned. I do not think that there is any real division in the Committee on the great economic advantages of federation in Central Africa.
The right hon. Gentleman turned to another point, which was the equally important one of African training facilities which would be available as a result of federation. It was clear that as a result of his visit, if this larger governmental administration and economic unit came into being it would no longer be necessary for the Africans of Southern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to go elsewhere for their higher training. I am sure that we agree that training and higher education in their various forms are of the most vital interest to African progress. If federation is to contribute to it, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said that it will, that is another strong argument in its favour.

Mrs. White: There is an important point here. The hon. Gentleman will realise that, for example, in East Africa there is Makerere, which would serve the same kind of purpose as we have at heart without federation. Therefore, it is not absolutely essential for unified higher education to have federation.

Mr. Alport: That may be true. Makerere has become effective only as a result of the closer union under the High Commission. Closer union in itself is essential. I will come back to the question of the idea of a High Commission for Central Africa later.
The third argument is the political argument. I do not want to elaborate it, but I should have thought that it was obvious to anyone who surveys the political scene in Africa south of the Sahara that there was great advantage in having a new centre of political gravity

in Central Africa. There is undoubtedly great political weakness covering the whole of the country from the north of the Union up to the Abyssinian border. There is no strong centre of attraction, no political centre, able to balance the very considerable influence of the Union.
If there are—as indeed there are—aspects of Union policy with which we are not in agreement, then it is in the interests of Africa as a whole, not least in the interest of the idea of British policy for Africa, that we should have a powerful, strong economic and political centre of gravity elsewhere. Therefore, on that major argument in favour of federation there would be no great disagreement on either side of the Committee.
I turn to some of the points in the other speeches which I have heard. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on many occasions arguments to the effect that one of the most important ways in which we can prevent the spread of Communism throughout the world and maintain the integrity of the British Commonwealth of nations is to improve the conditions of life of the people in the backward countries. I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) would agree with that.
If the economic arguments and cultural arguments are so strongly in favour of federation, it is essential that we should all bend our energies, imaginations and skill to try to evolve as soon as is possible some method of closer union which will bring those economic and cultural advantages to this part of Africa. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Llanelly is not present at the moment. I am surprised that he showed such suspicion of this project put forward at the last two conferences. I am sure that he will agree that if the argument is strong in favour of the economic advantages of federation, they follow precisely the sort of arguments that he has put most eloquently on numerous occasions. If those economic advantages are so great, what, we are entitled to ask, are the advantages to the three territories if federation does not take place?
I suggest that the best example of the effect of federation failing can be taken by considering the future of Nyasaland.
The position of Nyasaland is that it is primarily a reservoir of labour for the territories which surround it. In 1950, 147,000 Africans out of a population of only 2,500,000 left Nyasaland to obtain work elsewhere. That happens year by year. It has been happening for 50 years and more. The native of Nyasaland is a great traveller, a wanderer. But it is not wanderlust which takes him away: it is the desire for higher wages and a better standard of living which he can obtain by working in Northern or Southern Rhodesia or in the Union itself.
I go further and say that the reason there is a lack of school teachers in Nyasaland is that Nyasa-trained school teachers go to Southern Rhodesia or Northern Rhodesia to get the higher salaries available there. What will be the position of Nyasaland? It has no real economic resources of its own. There is a small amount of coal in the northern part of the territory but it has no large economic resources. What will be its future if federation fails?
I think it is summed up and admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick that, if federation does not take place, there is a very great danger of Southern Rhodesia being drawn into the orbit of the Union of South Africa. If Southern Rhodesia goes that way, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is perfectly logical, and indeed inevitable, that Northern Rhodesia will do the same.
Therefore, what is to be the position of Nyasaland in that case? It is to be a sort of new High Commission Territory, isolated from the sea and isolated from any communications with other parts of British East Africa, except the very tenuous route to the North. It is to be simply a reservoir of African labour which is to go, year by year, to work in territories over the native policies of which it has no control whatever, and, if I may go further than that, very likely, sooner or later, over which the Government in the United Kingdom will have no control whatever, either? Frankly, from the African point of view, Nyasaland is the biggest problem, because it has the biggest African population, and I believe very strongly that the policy of federation without Nyasaland would be absolutely disastrous.
We may ask ourselves, therefore, why it is that in Nyasaland, of all the three territories, the opposition is so great, and I frankly admit that I cannot give an answer quickly. All I can say is that it has been my experience of Africa that there has always been a good deal of jealousy between the administrations of one territory and another. I know quite well, and I am not exaggerating, that in the East African Territories, before the High Commission project came into operation, there was constant feeling and friction between Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. Indeed, the whole project of the High Commission was bitterly opposed in the early days, because it was felt that it would take away from the dignity of one territory or another, or would interfere with their interests, economic or otherwise.
My impression is that, at the root of this opposition, which is so strong in Nyasaland, is a feeling on the part of the administration, at any rate up to very recent days indeed—though I am sure they were quite loyal and straightforward in their point of view—that it was not in the interests of their territory, or in line with the policy which has been pursued in the last 50 years or so, to be associated with these other much more important, more powerful and more wealthy territories, which would form the rest of the federation.
Therefore, I do not think that we should assume entirely that the formation of African opinion in Nyasaland is a result of the work of Africans inside or of agitators from outside. I think it is very likely that it comes as a result of the reactions of a small isolated administration in an African territory which felt that being drawn into the orbit of a bigger federation would result in the loss of some of their influence, and that they would see some of their ideas submerged in policies with which they did not entirely agree. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he goes out there, will make quite certain that the administration realises that it is the stated policy of the Government that federation is in the best interests of that territory, as of the others.
I said that I would refer to the alternative to the federation proposal, and I must keep my promise. I do not think


there is any doubt on any side of the Committee that closer union in some form is desirable, but it is only right that, when one group of opinion puts forward one proposal which is heavily criticised, as this one has been, the group that criticised it should put forward an alternative. I have been looking for the alternative, and the only one that has come my way has been one which was put forward by Lord Farringdon in a letter to "The Times" written on behalf of the Fabian Colonial Bureau.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I help the hon. Gentleman on that point? The objection is not to the principle of federation. The objection is to the fact that the Federal Parliament would be under the control of the European majority, with insignificant African representation. Give the Africans representation, and there is no objection to the principle of federation.

Mr. Alport: That is an advance on the point of view taken by the noble Lord in his letter to "The Times" when he was writing on behalf of the Fabian Colonial Bureau, because he was opposed to federation, and favoured the High Commission system, which has been working in East Africa, as an alternative.
What I want to say about that is that I think we should be very wrong to suppose that we could apply the experiment which has been applied in East Africa to Central Africa at the present time. The truth of the matter is that the existence in Central Africa of a self-governing Colony, as is Southern Rhodesia, makes the relationship and harmonious working of a rather loosely knit and largely advisory body—although it has certain executive functions—such as the Central Legislative Council in East Africa, impossible. Indeed, we have had experience of this, and the Committee know very well that there was a Central African Council, and that, in fact, it proved a failure. Therefore, I do not think that the alternative of the High Commission system would work in Central Africa.
If I may now turn to another point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), she spoke about the safeguards, and her arguments were repeated by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).

Both suggested that the safeguards which exist in the present proposals are insufficient. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, if he had had to put forward his proposals, would have proposed something different from the safeguards which exist at the present time, but we should be very interested to hear what he would have proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman said—and my own feeling is that it bears a very close resemblance to what would have been proposed had the Opposition been in power—that the rights with which the Africans were concerned were not political rights, but the rights of land tenure, and that these were adequately safeguarded under the undertakings which both the former Government and the present Government have given.
I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that the statement made by the present Colonial Secretary fully endorses the undertaking which he gave when he was in that office. Therefore, I think that regarding the major point with which the Africans are concerned, the land rights of Africans, there is no doubt that adequate safeguards already exist. We have heard from both sides of the Committee that these safeguards, in fact, exist at the present time.
The next question is whether the political safeguards exist. Frankly, I do not think that these safeguards are simply a matter of political machinery. When we were last discussing this subject, I remember asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly whether he had taken action in order to make representations to the European unions in Northern Rhodesia in order to modify in some degree their very exclusive attitude on the subject of the colour bar. I do not know whether he has had any success as a result of those representations, but quite clearly that type of action, if it is successful, is far more likely to give confidence to the Africans than is any safeguard which can be provided in a constitution.
Action is necessary, and I have every hope and every belief that, whatever may be the extravagances of individuals in Central Africa, in Southern Rhodesia itself, there is a growing good will and understanding that actions in these


matters speak louder than words and that the confidence of the African towards the European and of the European towards the African is the essential basis and safeguard of the interests of both parties.
I want to elaborate a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker). I believe that the judicial safeguard is more effective and more acceptable to the minority than is the political safeguard. It has always been my view that the interpretation of whether an Act is ultra vires under the constitution should be decided by the judiciary rather than by any political figure. Under the present proposal, as the right hon. Member for Smethwick has pointed out, the Governor-General may assent to a Bill which has been objected to by the African Affairs Board if he is satisfied that it is not a differentiating Measure. It is very difficult for the constitutional head of a Government to make a political decision of that sort. Indeed, in many ways it is very difficult even for the Colonial Secretary here to make a decision in this context.
As has been the experience and example with all federal constitutions as far as I know, it is best that the decision on a matter of this sort, as to whether a piece of legislation which is objected to by the African Affairs Board is ultra vires or not, should be made in the first case as the result of an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court and, if necessary, as the result of further appeal from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Hon. Members opposite may tell me that the example of what has happened recently in South Africa would not give to the African any confidence in such an arrangement, but in my view the example of recent events in South Africa should give him the greatest confidence, because it has shown that, in fact, the Supreme Court provides a safeguard after all the political safeguards have disappeared. Further, the end of the story has not been reached in South Africa; we have still to see what will happen during the next few years. Finally on this line of argument, if the judicial safeguard goes, we can be quite sure that the political safeguard will have gone as well and that we shall have lost the accepted basis of the constitution, founded upon proper

balance, safeguards and all our normal ideas of the rule of law.
The proposals in the draft scheme have not been made final. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State goes to Africa he will have an opportunity to consider some of these other suggestions. I equally hope that these proposals will not be attacked without due thought by their critics on the other side of the Committee, because I believe they are constructive proposals which can and should give the Africans confidence in the safeguards for their interests existing in the new scheme.
It is fair to emphasise one other thing—that we must be equally certain that the safeguards for the interests of other racial communities in the three Territories are adequate. One of the reasons for the criticism of the present draft scheme is the belief that the safeguards for the Africans are more than adequate whereas those for the interests of the Asians and Europeans are inadequate. I should like to see this Board regarded not simply as an African Board but as a race relations board, because it is only through a race relations board that we can assure the great majority of Africans that their interests are properly protected, as well as those of the minority communities, who, although they may appear to have preponderant powers at present, in time may quite easily find themselves in need of protection against political domination by other communities. As we envisage it, and as I am sure it is envisaged by hon. Members opposite, the present position will develop in time so that the balance of power between the European community and the African community will be adjusted as the African community becomes more capable and trained in the exercise of political power.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) assumed that there is all virtue in the Colonial Office form of rule and all vice in the Southern Rhodesian form of rule. Let me quote from a very experienced person—a statement made by Colonel Gore-Browne, again from a Fabian Colonial Bureau publication. Colonel Gore-Browne, as he was then, said:
No honest observer could deny that a great deal is done for the general welfare of Africans in Southern Rhodesia, and much more contemplated for the future.


He was writing in 1944. He continued:
In many respects Southern Rhodesia is ahead of Northern Rhodesia in social work on behalf of the natives. Indeed, the present writer argued in his maiden speech seven years ago in the Legislative Council that the deplorable state of the social services for natives in Northern Rhodesia was proof that belief in a 'Colonial Office policy' and the acceptance of the doctrine of trusteeship were by themselves no guarantee of fitness to rule a subject race.
Those are very strong words, and whether or not they are merited is not for me to say, but I think we must be fair in this matter and realise that those who live and work in Africa, and have the future of themselves and their families to think of in Africa, realise as clearly as we do that it is in their own interests to work with and for the African members of the community of which they are part and to which they are determined, in their different ways, to make their contribution. Therefore in Southern Rhodesia we have an example of progress which until very recently has not been competed with in any way in the other two territories.
I believe that we in this country, and in the House of Commons in particular, have a very grave responsibility indeed. I believe that if we fail to make a decision which we believe to be in the interests of the African, if we fail to take the opportunity which exists at present, if we continue to throw cold water on a great political design, we shall be condemning Africans in Central Africa to a very uncertain and perhaps very unhappy future. I hope that all hon. and right hon. Members opposite, when approaching this subject, will think of it not simply from any doctrinaire point of view but as perhaps the greatest act of statesmanship that can be taken in Africa since the passing of the 1910 Act

8.31 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I shall not take a disproportionate share of the time left for this debate because I think that we are all anxious to hear the ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I shall confine myself to three minutes. I could not possibly attempt to do justice to the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) in that time. It would require at least the 35 minutes which he himself took. Perhaps on another occasion some of us who have been unfor-

tunate may be a little higher up in the queue and may be called, for instance, like my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid).
We all agree that federation—even the scheme of federation which has been put forward—has, or may have, certain economic advantages. But that does not mean that therefore it must be imposed upon a people to whom may pass a certain amount of those advantages. The essential distinction between many hon. Members opposite and some on this side of the Committee and others, is that some of us do not deny that federation may have certain economic and political advantages, but we say that there is a moral and spiritual fact which must not be ignored. That fact is the inherent rights of the people themselves. Once we go away from that we shall find ourselves in a position where we are justifying Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, and all other forms of economy or of polity which are to us so reprehensible.
When we eulogise partnership—and that has been done on both sides of the Committee today—we must define what we mean by it. There is block partnership as between one community and another, and there is personal partnership. There is the partnership between the small, wealthy class in this country on the one hand, with equal representation in the House of Commons, and the rest of the community—the kind of partnership we are now repudiating. The only kind of partnership that is valid is democratic partnership, which means that we must aim at a central African federation based upon the inherent rights of individuals, whether white or black. The time for that to be achieved may be remote, but at least we must be guaranteed that that is the ultimate goal and that it must be achieved.
Unless we can win the peoples of Central Africa into a real appreciation of our intentions and motives and assurances, then we owe it to these fellow human beings, even when we have the desire to do good to them, not to impose our will upon them. I say that because one cannot take Central Africa out of the context of the whole of Africa. Right or wrong, the people of Africa are watching what is taking place in Central Africa. There is in the arena of Africa a conflict between two ideas—the idea of democracy


and the idea of domination. We have to take our side in that conflict.
Because I believe that the whole hope of mankind in Africa and elsewhere is a guarantee that we shall work towards an ultimate democracy, I hope that whatever may be said in eulogy of this particular scheme we shall not endeavour to impose it upon the people of Africa at any time; because the only way in which we can secure real co-operation between ourselves and the people of Africa is by winning their confidence and good will.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: In less than an hour's time the dreaded Guillotine will fall, and I shall, therefore, try to divide the time available fairly between myself and the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who is to reply. I do not wish to take up too much time, since we have three Ministers to speak from the Government Front Bench, and I hope, therefore, to confine my remarks to half an hour at the most.
I am going to get straight down to discussing major points to which I wish to refer and not to repeat what I have said so often about federation and its advantages. First of all, we are very glad that the Colonial Secretary has made two statements, and I want to repeat them so that they are completely on the record. First, the conference is postponed until January; that gives us more time. Secondly, no irrevocable step will be taken before Parliament has a further opportunity of debating the matter and then coming to a decision. In the meantime, we have a draft scheme before us, and I want to discuss that scheme. It is right that we should discuss it in as much detail as time allows.
I want to make comments, criticisms and suggestions. We are entitled to make criticisms and suggestions because it is quite clear that, whenever the conference is called—and it is now going to be in January—there will be criticisms and suggestions from Southern Rhodesia, and it may be from other places too, who were represented at the conference and agreed to this scheme. It is quite clear that at the next conference they will try to make a further amendment.
Let me examine the draft scheme, and, in particular, compare it with the original

scheme. Whilst it is clear that from the beginning neither I nor my hon. Friends nor the Government were committed to any details of the original scheme, I am going to compare the two because I have come to the conclusion after careful thought, for reasons which I will put before the Committee as fully as I can, that in many respects the new scheme which we have before us is weaker in its protection of African interests and is, in my view, in many respects not so good as the scheme which was originally proposed.
In order to examine it in detail, let me set out the criteria by which I examine the scheme, or indeed any scheme, and by which we shall examine any other scheme which comes before us for our decision. There are three criteria which we have to lay down. The first is that any scheme must contain sufficient safeguards of African interests, and among those safeguards must be one to ensure the continuation and development of the policy to which we are all committed; namely, to secure their economic and political advancement as part of our declared Colonial policy, which is shared by all parties in the House. It is our desire to guide the people of the Colonial Territories to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth.
The second criterion is this: does the scheme provide adequate and effective powers for Her Majesty's Government to fulfil her obligations and her special responsibilities towards these territories as Protectorates? It is common to both schemes that the Protectorate status of the two Northern Territories is to be preserved and enshrined in the constitution. That means, therefore, that there will continue to be Protectorates with the right to look to us for protection, and we have no right, as a Government or as a Parliament or as a country, to take responsibilities unless we have power to fufil them.
The third criterion is: does the scheme give the prospect of secure federation by consent and agreement? Let me state the third test in words in which the officials set out this problem in their Report. Paragraph 35 of the Report says:
We have constantly borne in mind that whatever is proposed must be designed not only to promote the well-being of the territories and their inhabitants"—


I ask the Committee to note these words—
but also to be acceptable to the inhabitants and to the Governments of the Legislatures concerned.
Those are the three tests which I propose to apply in examining this scheme.
Now I come to the major changes to which the Colonial Secretary referred in his speech earlier in the day. As far as procedure is concerned, the safeguards in the original scheme were embodied in two proposals. First, there should be a Minister for African Interests, appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Secretary of State, and answerable to the Secretary of State through the Governor-General. That Minister could not be dismissed except by the Governor-General, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
That proposal is abandoned. It is quite clear from the report that the officials regarded that proposal as one of the main safeguards. I can understand why. Let us face up to this, because it is a problem for us all. We have to realise that in Africa in these days procedural safeguards are a debased currency. In a grave matter of this kind one should speak with frankness. Being frank is part of the duty of being responsible. I do not think that anybody in this Committee would deny that our faith in purely procedural safeguards has been shaken to the roots by what is happening today in the Union of South Africa.
I want to put this question perfectly fairly before the Committee. Can we now go to the peoples of these three Territories and tell them to rely upon the kind of safeguards which have been swept away with one stroke of the hand in the Union? It is quite clear that there must be a safeguard which is something more than procedural, a safeguard personified by the appointment of someone in the Cabinet. I know all the constitutional arguments against that. The Colonial Secretary described him as a cuckoo in the nest. It is said that it would destroy Cabinet responsibility.
If I may quote "The Times," this is a proposal for a federation of unequals in territories that we propose, in the scheme, to keep unequal. If we assume that federation were to start next Monday, on Tuesday Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would be Protectorates, under

the protection of Her Majesty's Government. This proposal to abandon the Minister means that the Secretary of State, or whoever else it might be, cannot hold anyone in the Cabinet responsible for taking all the steps that are required to safeguard African interests.
I raised this point when the Colonial Secretary referred to this subject, and I raise it again now. In every colonial constitution and in every constitution which affects a Colony it is becoming an essential part of our organisation and machinery that there should be a member in the executive to represent the Africans—a person responsible to the Governor—and, through the Governor, to the Secretary of State—for protecting African interests because, as Lord Hailey pointed out in the other House, the actions which affect African interests most are not legislative but executive and administrative. If we are to protect African interests against executive and administrative action that might adversely affect them, we must do so at a point in the Cabinet.

Mr. Lyttelton: The noble Lord also said that the present scheme gaye far greater safeguards than the old one.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not share his view. I was only quoting what he said was his experience. It is quite clear that it is essential for us to have in the Cabinet some Minister who will be responsible to the Secretary of State. That Minister has gone. There is no one whom the Secretary of State can hold responsible in this federal structure.
I was asked for an alternative. If it is held to be constitutionally impossible to have a Minister of this kind—I express my own view I prefer it—then let me make a suggestion. There will be nine African representatives out of a total of 35 in the Legislature. Has it been considered whether there should be an African in the Cabinet? If there are going to be nine Africans out of 35 representatives on the Legislative Council—that is roughly one-fourth—what proportion of Africans are to have a seat in the Cabinet?
If we consider it essential to ensure the Constitution that there should be at least nine Africans in the Legislature, is it not logical and right also to ensure that there shall be some Africans in the


Cabinet? That, surely, is a sound proposal, and that would be my alternative. I hope it will be considered.
I now turn to the second problem, the African Affairs Board. My view is that it has been weakened in two respects compared with the proposal in the original scheme. The first weakness, of course, is the abandonment of the Minister for African interests. He was to be the Chairman of the African Affairs Board with power to deal with legislation and he was to be a Minister in the Cabinet with power to veto executive action if he thought that necessary. There we had a complete safeguard against executive and administrative action which was to have been embodied in a single person whose final appointment and dismissal would vest in the authority of the Secretary of State.
That Minister has now gone, and, therefore, some other chairman will come in. That chairman must not be appointed from among those who are not members of the Federal Legislature or of the Territorial Legislature. In other words, he is to be chosen from among laymen who must have no connection at all with political life. Does anyone suggest that strengthens the safeguards?
The second change is that in connection with the composition of the African Affairs Board. In the original proposal it was suggested that the Board should consist of nine members; one African from each territory, one elected member from the Europeans in each territory, and the remainder were to be the three Secretaries for Native Affairs from the territories.
That proposal has now been dropped. Why? We must remember that these territories are Protectorates, and that in each of them the Secretary for Native Affairs is the officer directly responsible in the Executive Council of the territory for safeguarding African interests. It is now made impossible for him to sit on the Board. I say, therefore, that the proposed new Board is a much weaker instrument of protection for the Africans than was the old Board.
But, in addition to that, there is another change. This is a change of words, but a change which has real significance and which applies to executive, administrative

and legislative action. In the officials' proposals the Minister would have the right to object to administrative and executive action if, in his view, it would be detrimental to African interests. Under the original proposals, the African Affairs Board was entitled to hold up and to refer for consideration by Her Majesty's Government any legislation which in their opinion was detrimental to African interests. The word "detrimental" has been deleted, and the word "differential" has been substituted. But it is possible to have legislation which would be detrimental to African interest without being differential. Therefore, I say that the change of wording from "detrimental" to "differential" is a narrowing of the powers of the Board in all three fields: executive, administrative and legislative.
The Minister of State is going to meet these people. I wish him "Bon voyage." I am sure he is going to enjoy it. He is going to consult the African people, and I know he is going to try to consult the opinions of Africans who are representative. I wish him a safe return from a voyage which I enjoyed myself. I am sure that he will enjoy it. He thinks he is going to find widespread support. I would be dishonest with myself if I told him that I shared his view. These safeguards are not as solid as the old ones. I say that quite frankly.
I would make two suggestions. The first is the suggestion I have made already about representatives of the Africans in the Executive and in the Cabinet. The second is that I ask the Minister to reconsider introducing the word "detrimental" and dropping this lot of words about "differential," through which carts and horses can be driven.
In their report, the officials said that they made no recommendation as to the amendment of the constitution. Whilst they made no recommendation, they suggested that it might run for five years and at some period after be reviewed. Now we have a provision there for the amendment of the constitution. The Federal Legislature, by a two-thirds majority, are to have the power not only to amend the constitution in the draft scheme but also—no notice has been taken of this in the debate today—to set up a second chamber. In other words, they can alter this constitution fundamentally. They can create another House


of Parliament in addition to the one that we make and they can do that by a two-thirds majority, subject to these safeguards.
The real point that I want to urge, because it is the most important of all, is that there is no provision here by which the political advancement of the Africans in the Federal Legislature can be ensured except by the will and the initiative of the European elected members in the federation. I say, and I measure my words, that if we accept that, it is the surrender of our Protectorate responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is. Remember that these are not Colonies. These are Protectorates, in which our responsibilities are defined in contractual agreements. There is no time now to discuss it, but when we come to discuss it in January that will be one of the problems.
Do we have to amend the contractual obligations in the light of these proposals? They are contractual obligations signed by Her Majesty and the Chiefs. There is no doubt about it. We have undertaken to protect them until they are strong enough to stand on their own feet, and indeed to encourage their development. That is our policy. Therefore the position is now this: within the territories themselves and within the territorial government the power of the Secretary of State for the Colonies will remain. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. In the future, at some time—

Mr. Alport: Mr. Alport rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman took 35 minutes, and I want to give the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Government Front Bench an opportunity to reply. As I said, we have undertaken in all these territories to help them to democratic self-government. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that in due course, both in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia, the number of Africans in the Legislative Council will increase. The balance will be changed between the Europeans and the Africans, and I can see a position in a few years time where the African representation in the territories will have increased in strength but cannot be reflected in the Federal Legislature unless the 22 Europeans agree. The Secretary of State and his successors

can arrange for the political advancement of Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia but cannot promote their advancement in the Federal Legislature.
It cannot begin to be discussed until they pass a two-third resolution. I say quite frankly that any scheme which contains that is not a scheme which I could bring myself to support. It is better to be frank now while there is time to discuss the whole matter. In my view, it would be a departure from the policy not only of the present Secretary of State but of what I myself, my predecessors and his successors do when we take office: we affirm our colonial policy in practically identical words—we may change a word here or a sentence there. What will remain if we give up the right to initiate a change and to carry it out?
I want to be perfectly fair. In these proposals we surrender the right to do this. That is the view of Sir Godfrey Huggins of what was settled at the conference. Let me quote from "The Observer" of 13th July from the speech he made:
There is no reason why there should be any more Africans until the Federal Parliament amends the law. The Parliament can go black only when the whites in that Parliament increase it. They will not have any more Africans in until the Europeans in that Parliament are satisfied they ought to have more in.
He comments at the end:
By that stage we shall have grown so much that we shall have a bigger Parliament.
At Victoria Falls we signed a Declaration that the only policy likely to succeed in Central Africa was one of partnership between Europeans and Africans. We all signed that—Sir Godfrey Huggins, myself, my right hon. Friend, the representatives of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—at Victoria Falls. But we all agreed that the only policy which could succeed in the circumstances of Central Africa was one of partnership. This is not partnership. This is a barrier to partnership. This will stop partnership developing. In the circumstances of today in this territory, as in many other territories, the partnership between Europeans and Africans must be a senior and junior partnership. It will not always be so. It is now. Whilst it is a senior and junior partnership, we have the responsibility which we have no right to surrender to anyone else, to look after the junior partner until that junior partner can stand


equal with the other, not to dominate but to be equal.
I say, therefore, that with regard to these major changes in the draft scheme as compared with the old one, I could not honestly commend them to the people in Central Africa or to hon. Members of the House for acceptance. If I may be allowed to make one last quotation—no, I will dispense with the quotation and say it myself.
Here in Central Africa, here in East Africa, we have this problem: the problem that there are communities of different races, of different colours, at different levels of civilisation. It is a difficult problem; it is an important one.
In the 20 months during which I was privileged to be Secretary of State for the Colonies, it so happens that the only two territories I visited in Africa were the territories where we have this problem in this setting. In East Africa, there are Tanganyika and Kenya. In Central Africa, there are these three territories.
I reject white domination. I equally reject black domination. I want them to work together on the basis of partnership for the future, and on the foundation of racial unity and racial co-operation. I strove within my lights to pursue that policy. I strove to pursue it in Kenya. I said to them, "I do not want to impose a settlement upon you. I ask you to sit down and take your time about it." I gave them four years. "Work out your future constitution in agreement."
The same offer was made to Tanganyika, and I praised the people in Tanganyika—Europeans, Africans and Asians—for having arrived at a unanimous settlement as to the next stage to move towards in their constitution, by which they have agreed that the next stage will contain equal representation of the three races.
I make a suggestion to the Minister of State. He is certainly entitled to go, and I wish him well in going to explain to the Africans, to consult with the Africans, to seek their views and their comments and suggestions, and to consult with the other representatives upon the draft scheme; and to recommend the draft scheme to them and to urge them to accept it. He is perfectly entitled to do that if he believes it is a scheme that he should commend to them.
May I suggest that the Minister does something else? I believe—I hope not—that he will find this difficulty: the difficulty of getting the African people in particular to discuss this, because of other things that are the background; for let us face it that when we talk of partnership, they point to the existing evidences of what can be described as anything but partnership.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) asked me about the situation in the Copper Belt. Through my own trade union I am interested in them. I saw matters there in a setting that I understand, and I say here what I said to the European miners: "As one miner to another, you cannot keep these Africans down there for long. I am a collier too, and I know that one of these days their skill will develop and their knowledge will increase. They will want to be paid the same as I am paid for doing the same kind of work and exercising the same kind of skill. I praise you for training them." I paid them my meed of praise.
Realising that, I say to all the Europeans all over Africa. "I know that all of you have made a great contribution to Africa. Please remember that your children and your grandchildren will live with Africans 50 years hence. They will not be the Africans of the Bush, but the Africans of the colleges in this country, the same colleges as our sons and daughters are attending, in which they are studying the same subjects, passing the same examinations and developing the same skills. Those children will have to live together in 50 years' time, and I do not want their relationship to each other in 50 years to be destroyed by the bitter memories of what is happening now."
I say, therefore, to all the Europeans, with my full tribute of praise for all they have done: "Invest in the future. Your security and that of the African depends in the end not on any kind of safeguards. It depends on the goodwill that you build up now. Come together." I use frank words. "End some of these stupid colour bars." And I say to the mining areas also, "End some of them."
I ask the Minister when he goes out to seize what, I believe, is the great chance we missed. I say this, no matter who was responsible. When my right


hon. Friend and I left Victoria Falls there was the offer from the Africans of Northern Rhodesia to sit down and discuss a programme to implement partnership. The offer was not taken. The offer was missed. Seek to recover it. Discuss not only federation but bring them together to discuss all these problems. If they settle one thing in agreement, such as the colour bar, they are on the road to partnership.
Here we have the last chance in Africa—it may be the last in the world—of showing that we can build a decent democracy on the basis of men of different colours and at different stages of civilisation working together as partners towards a common end. It may be the last chance; I hope we shall not miss it.

9.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): When I had prepared my opening words, I was going to say that there was a large measure of agreement on both sides of the Committee in favour of putting this scheme for federation before public opinion in Africa, both Europeans and Africans.
I am sorry to say, after listening to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), that it does appear that there is no such agreement on the other side of the Committee and, I gather, no agreement between the Members of the Labour Party themselves. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) put one point of view and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), when he made his opening speech, certainly did not make it on the premise that this scheme was unacceptable for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Llanelly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how the African Affairs Board would work and pointed out another thing with regard to the African Affairs Board, but obviously on the assumption that he accepted the principle of the African Affairs Board. The right hon. Member for Llanelly does not accept that. He does not think, as he has told the Committee just now, that the present scheme for federation ought to be acceptable by this Committee and ought to be recommended to the people in Africa

Mr. J. Griffiths: For the reasons I have given.

Mr. Foster: For the reasons he has given. Let us turn for a moment to his criticism about the Minister for African Affairs. Even there among those of the Labour Party who object to this scheme I believe the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) is in general agreement with his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly on his objection to this scheme. I believe that if he had spoken in this debate he would have repeated the sentiments of the right hon Member for Llanelly—

Mr. J. Dugdale: Mr. J. Dugdale indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: —and said, "I would not recommend this scheme to the people of Africa." He is nodding, and I suppose he agrees. He knows perfectly well that one of the main reasons why the right hon. Member for Llanelly objects is on the question of a Minister for African Affairs, but the right hon. Member for West Bromwich has thought the previous scheme unacceptable because it would have a Minister for African Affairs. The right hon. Member is frowning. I will allow him to interrupt if that is not true.

Mr. Dugdale: I certainly agree that I said the idea of having one Minister of African Affairs was a weak safeguard, but the present safeguards are even weaker.

Mr. Foster: That is the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was:
Whatever Minister in any Cabinet could possibly survive under those conditions? He will have a dual loyalty, a loyalty to the people who appointed him and a loyalty to the Secretary of State in this country to whom he will be responsible. It is an intolerable position, and goes beyond the system of collective responsibility. Indeed, it goes quite against it, and I consider that it is so unworkable that the Minister would himself before very long disappear because his position would he quite untenable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 255.]
If the Committee think that is an expression of view of what is rather a weak safeguard, I leave the right hon. Gentleman to try to give that impression to the Committee. I prefer to rest on the understanding of people's common sense as to what that means.
The right hon. Gentleman objects on the ground of a Minister for African


Affairs. But he found also that the Fabian Colonial Bureau was against him. If the Committee would like the quotation, they say:
The position of the African Affairs Board as outlined in the Official Report was distinctly dubious.
Then, when they mentioned the Minister for African Affairs, they say:
If this Minister carried out his duties fully it would be at least difficult for the Cabinet to work on the principle of collective responsibility,
Thus echoing the objections of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich.
What is really the position? The right hon. Member objects to this scheme of federation on the premise which is shared by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and also the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) that this proposal for federation will not create conditions in which a partnership can be developed; and therefore we cannot hand over to the federation the task of the junior partner being allowed to grow up to become an equal partner. That is the criticism.
Of course, people may change their minds. But if somebody had adopted a scheme which would be open to some objections—as I hope to show the Committee in a minute clearly the official scheme was—and if he changes his mind when in opposition, it is a legitimate point to say that one doubts whether in his heart of hearts he is really convinced of the accuracy of it, and whether he is not misled by the fact that it is no longer his scheme.
The officials' report, if one looks at it, is open to some objection. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to try to give the impression to the Committee that the new scheme was open to the objection that there were not positive proposals by which the United Kingdom could control the progress of the Africans at the centre, but that the official scheme did contain such proposals. If the Committee will look at the official scheme they will see that that is not so. The right hon. Gentleman said that the official report was a constructive approach—he probably remembers using those words in introducing it to the House. He ought to have added, "But I cannot recommend this scheme to the people of Africa. It is a scheme

which would not be in the interests of the people of Africa, because it does not contain any proposal by which the United Kingdom keeps control of this progress of partnership."

Mr. Gordon Walker: Did not the officials suggest that there should be a review, I think it was five years after the adoption of the scheme?

Mr. Foster: That is as excellent an attempt—

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is true.

Mr. Foster: —to come to the rescue, as did the Germans at Quatre Bras.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is in the report.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly on his own premises, when opening the debate today, said that in his view there ought to be a review in five or 10 years. But obviously if he is advocating a review he is in favour of the scheme as it is on broad lines. He cannot be asking for a review of something to which he is opposed—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite always say "No" and sit down without interrupting when they do not like an argument.
But if somebody says that he wishes a scheme to be reviewed in 10 years, would any hon. Member of this Committee guess that he was opposed to it and that he thought it would not be right for the Africans? Of course not. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was only repeating what he said in opening, that in five or 10 years it ought to be reviewed.
But that does not meet the opinion of the right hon. Member for Llanelly, who says that this scheme is unacceptable because it had no provisions for reviewing it in 10 years. That is his argument—

Mr. Griffiths: I said it was unacceptable. I made a truncated speech, but I thought I gave my reasons clearly. One is that there is no provision by which we can review these matters.

Mr. Foster: That is one subsidiary reason, but there is the more fundamental reason, that he had said the provisions which I mentioned—the removal of the Minister for African Affairs and the


making of an African Affairs Board—those things were so fundamental that, were he the Minister of State for the Colonies instead of my right hon. Friend, he would have to go out to Africa and tell the Africans, "Do not take this."

Mr. Griffiths: Do not take these provisions.

Mr. Foster: As I am trying to show, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have said to the House at the time when he was introducing the officials' report not, "I regard it as a constructive approach," but, "This scheme is unacceptable to the Africans. They must not accept it. I will go out and tell them that they must not." Exactly the same criticism can be applied to the officials' report as to this one.

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Foster: We will try to prove it. Let us agree that if I can prove it I shall be right and that if I cannot prove it I shall be wrong. The Committee will appreciate that one has to speak fast because of the short time available and to speak dogmatically for the sake of brevity. The Committee will also appreciate that I have to put the case off the cuff.
Paragraph 48 of the officials' report refers to the safeguards of the African interests. It says:
In the federal sphere the Government and Legislature of British Central Africa would have full responsibility with a Cabinet system of government subject, however, to the safeguards described in the following paragraphs.
The safeguards are the Minister for African Affairs and—adopting the argument just for this purpose—what the right hon. Gentleman calls the strengthened African Affairs Board.
Neither of these safeguards provide for what he says is lacking in the new scheme—for the development of partnership at the centre by the control of the United Kingdom. So we can leave out the safeguards. They do not contain these positive provisions. I submit that the provision of a complete system of cabinet government at the centre includes amendments of the constitution. I cannot imagine a system of government with full cabinet responsibility where amendments of the constitution come from outside.

Mr. Griffiths: Would the hon. and learned Member please remember all the time that we have all agreed that these two Northern Territories will remain Protectorates?

Mr. Foster: Exactly. They remain Protectorates under the present scheme. I say that the two schemes are identical on the point on which the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not accept the new scheme. Both the territories remain Protectorates under the scheme. They were both Protectorates under the old scheme. The safeguards under the new scheme are not the same. According to his argument, this scheme does not provide the positive growth of partnership by the control of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, the only place where it can be found is in the provision made for constitutional advancement. That must be according to the cabinet. I cannot imagine, and neither I am sure can hon. Members if they look at the matter fairly, any system of cabinet government with complete responsibility at the centre, subject to the safeguards, where the amendment of the constitution would be introduced by a body outside the cabinet government.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be arguing that the provision for review, which was in the former scheme and is not in this one, is only of subsidiary importance. If he regards it as of main importance, then the whole attack on my right hon. Friend falls down, because here is a vital difference. If he regards it as of only subsidiary importance, will he agree to put a provision for review into this scheme?

Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman point out the provision for review to which he has referred?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the conditions for review were referred to by my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Foster: Where are they?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted that they existed—

Mr. Foster: Where are they?

Mr. Stewart: The ones he himself was describing recently.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend permit me? Paragraph 100 of the officials' report states:
In our sketch of the federal constitution for the associated territories, we have included no specific provision for its amendment. We do not, of course, regard the structure as one which should be immutable. … At some stage thereafter"—
They say there should be a change after five years—
the detailed working of the scheme might require review, but we suggest that the Governments should not commit themselves to any specific time for this.
Therefore, it was quite clear that there was to be consideration of a periodic review.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman said "probably." It was not embodied in the scheme. But the objection of the right hon. Gentleman was that in the scheme itself there was no provision for control from the United Kingdom. Obviously, in this scheme, it is open to the four Governments to review it when they want to by agreement, and nobody can stop them. There are the three parties involved because they are federated, and the United Kingdom is involved because of the power of reserved legislation and so on.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I gather from that interpretation that the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that, if this constitution comes into operation and Her Majesty's Government want to increase the number of African representatives from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, they could take the initiative?

Mr. Foster: No, I am saying that these four Governments can amend the constitution if they want to. Under the officials' scheme, the United Kingdom could not have done anything without the consent of the others. They have not got the initiative. Therefore, I submit to the Committee that it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind on this point, because there was no provision for unilateral review by the United Kingdom under the old scheme and there is no such provision under the present scheme. The United Kingdom is involved just as it was before.
I must now pass on from that point to the point which the right hon. Gentleman made about the use of the words "differentiating" and "detrimental." For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, may I say that his argument was that, in the new scheme, the word "detrimental" had been omitted, and the word "differentiating" put in. I think that, while omitting the word in the new scheme, we have defined "differentiating," and the right hon. Gentleman will find that a differentiating measure is one which is disadvantageous, and there is no difference between detrimental and disadvantageous..
In other words, in the new scheme, the definition of "differentiating" involves the use of the word "disadvantageous," which is the same as detrimental, so that it comes to exactly the same thing, or near enough not to make his point a valid one.
'Differentiating measure' means a Bill or a subordinate law by which Africans are subjected or made liable to any conditions, restrictions or disabilities which are disadvantageous to them to which Europeans are not also subjected or made liable.
I appeal to the Committee whether there is anything in what the right hon. Gentleman says about the terrible omission of this word, which makes him say that he would tell the Africans, "You must not accept it, because the word 'detrimental' has been omitted," when, in fact, the definition of "differentiating" is that it is disadvantageous. He says he would tell the Africans not to accept it, because of this horrible word "disadvantageous," instead of "detrimental." I really cannot think that that is a sound point.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to say to the Africans that the word "disadvantageous" has the full meaning of "detrimental," and that if they thought that a differential measure was detrimental to African interests, they could object to it?

Mr. Foster: Yes; I thought that was obvious.

Mr. Griffiths: Then why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman say so?

Mr. Foster: I did not have the opportunity. In my view it is slightly wider. It is, of course, more correctly drafted,


because the other scheme was drafted only on wide terms—and I am not complaining about that. I have not had an opportunity of saying so because I did not expect that such a weak point, if I may use that adjective, would be made. It never occurred to me that somebody would say, "I will tell the Africans to reject the scheme because the word 'detrimental' is different from disadvantageous'." That is what it amounts to.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick rightly asked me to deal with a point which my right hon. Friend said I would deal with—namely, that about whether the franchise should be a territorial matter or a federal matter. That is a point which might be considered at the forthcoming conference. I would only say this about it. It might work to the disadvantage of the Africans, and I wonder whether he has considered that possibility. I am sure he did not wish to record a point which might work that way. If we have a territorial rule about federal franchise it means that any territory can restrict the African franchise for the federal legislature.

Mr. Gordon Walker: They can also enlarge it.

Mr. Foster: But it would make it possible for any territory to restrict the African franchise, which I should have thought was a point to be taken into account when discussing whether we should have a territorial franchise or a federal franchise. I feel that if the right hon. Gentleman had borne that point in mind he would not have spoken so strongly in favour of the territorial franchise. I agree that it is a debateable point and one which ought, perhaps, to be considered at the conference.
I expect that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) would like me to deal with a point which he interjected about the two Africans from Southern Rhodesia. He may have thought that, because of the short time left, I was evading the point. All I would say is this: whatever they may have said afterwards, they expressed their agreement with the federal scheme when they were in London. Apparently the Government cannot do right, because at the time we mentioned the matter and said how independent minded they were, there was a cry of "stooges" from, I

think, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen)—

Mr. Sorensen: Mr. Sorensen indicated dissent—

Mr. Foster: The hon. Member for Leyton says that it was not the case, but it was certainly the case with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. He said, "stooges," and I imagine that he will now withdraw the remark.

Mr. Brockway: I am delighted to do so. I am always ready to admit that I am mistaken when it has clearly been shown that I am.

Mr. Foster: I think it is quite a small triumph to have got the hon. Member to do so. I appreciate that hon. Members on all sides, and including the right hon. Member for Llanelly, have made valuable contributions to the debate and have put forward points which ought to have our earnest consideration and the consideration of the other Governments. As I say, the right hon. Member for Llanelly was a little too narrow in his interpretation of the scheme—but this is where we differ.
I think it is an act of statesmanship on the part of the Labour Party not to divide on this occasion but to let the plan go forward, with the good wishes of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite for my right hon. Friend as he goes on his journey. I hope that not too much will be made of isolated excerpts from people's speeches. For instance, I think the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East was misled by a newspaper cutting. The Native Affairs Minister did not say "nullify"; he said "modify." I hope that the good wishes of all will go with my right hon. Friend on his journey.

9.29 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I am afraid there is scarcely time for me to develop a point of view which I wished to put, but I must say that I was somewhat distressed by the attitude and speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in so far as they affect the white population in the territories, because what he was saying to them, in effect, was "We cannot trust you to carry the torch of liberty and advancement in which we all believe." That is resented because—

It being half-past Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions:

That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including a Revised Estimate and Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Revenue Departments and the Ministry of Defence Estimates, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, including Revised Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53

CLASS I

That a sum, not exceeding £8,570,569, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
House of Lords
73,820


2.
House of Commons
624,690


3.
Registration of Electors
275,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,249,653


5.
Privy Council Office
18,795


6.
Privy Seal Office
5,050


7.
Charity Commission
54,823


8.
Civil Service Commission
265,290


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
265,742


10.
Government Actuary
18,598


11.
Government Chemist
160,727


12.
Government Hospitality
40,000


13.
The Mint
90


14.
National Debt Office
1,705


15.
National Savings Committee
627,254


16.
Overlapping Income Tax Payments
6,500


17.
Public Record Office
60,054


18.
Public Works Loan Commission
90


19.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
8,700


20.
Royal Commissions, &amp;c.
100,530


21.
Secret Service
3,000,000


22.
Tithe Redemption Commission
90


23.
Silver
90


24.
American Aid Counterpart Funds
350,000

£


25.
Miscellaneous Expenses
82,661


25A.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
262,835



Scotland: —



27.
Scottish Record Office
17,682




£8,570,569

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

That a sum, not exceeding £55,144,104, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to default the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Foreign Service
8,627,800


2.
Foreign Office Grants and Services (including a Supplementary sum of £1,632,010)
13,549,530


3.
British Council
1,082,000


4.
United Nations
562,000


6.
Commonwealth Services
763,922


7.
Oversea Settlement
26,910


9.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
19,104,216


10.
Overseas Food Corporation
843,415


11.
Development and Welfare (Colonies &amp;c.)
10,000,000


12.
Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
320,000


13.
Imperial War Graves Commission
264,311




£55,144,104

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

That a sum, not exceeding £54,625,447, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Home Office
2,197,725


2.
Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
10,945,360


3.
Police, England and Wales
21,319,465


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
4,232,843


5.
Child Care, England and Wales
6,059,900


6.
Fire Services, England and Wales
2,737,528


7.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c
678,792


8.
County Courts
266,215


9.
Land Registry
90


10.
Public Trustee
90


11.
Law Charges
300,131


12.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
25,880

Scotland:—




£


13.
Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)
935,497


14.
Police
3,192,060


15.
Prisons
423,428


16.
Approved Schools
167,850


17.
Fire Services
396,036


18.
Scottish Land Court
10,856


19.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
119,251


20.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
90



Ireland:—



21.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c., Northern Ireland
26,390


22.
Irish Land Purchase Services
589,970




£54,625,447

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

That a sum, not exceeding £186,700,819, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Education
140,185,249


2.
British Museum
215,021


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
172,967


4.
Imperial War Museum
20,867


5.
London Museum
12,425


6.
National Gallery
49,906


7.
National Maritime Museum
20,424


8.
National Portrait Gallery
13,182


9.
Wallace Collection
16,022


10.
Grants for Science and the Arts (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)
2,424,296


11.
Universities and Colleges, &amp;c., Great Britain
13,469,400


12.
Broadcasting
11,500,000


13.
Festival of Britain, 1951
381,878



Scotland:—



14.
Public Education
18,183,983


15.
National Galleries
22,760


16.
National Library
12,439




£186,700.819

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

That a sum, not exceeding £599,575,910, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
4,972,180


2.
Housing, England and Wales
41,804,260


3.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
38,630,000

£


4.
Ministry of Health
4,028,510


5.
National Health Service, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £31,681,000)
261,433,500


6.
Registrar General's Office
328,150


7.
Ministry of Labour and National Service
13,194,000


8.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
415,000


9.
Ministry of National Insurance (including a Supplementary sum of £26,700,000)
117,561,000


10.
National Assistance Board
69,785,000


11.
Friendly Societies Registry
44,270


12.
Central Land Board
1,515,000



Scotland:—



13.
Department of Health
1,731,000


14.
National Health Service (including a Supplementary sum of £3,775,000)
33,109,000


15.
Housing
7,183,730


16.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues
3,797,000


17.
Registrar General's Office
44,310




£599,575,910

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

That a sum, not exceeding £88,663,990, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Board of Trade (including a Supplementary sum of £15,000)
4,706,805


2.
Services in Development Areas
2,750,060


3.
Financial Assistance in Development Areas
910,010


4.
Export Credits
90


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
400,000


6.
Ministry of Fuel and Power (including a Supplementary sum of £250,000)
2,792,000


7.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
51,713


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
15,318,326


9.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £3,800,000)
20,927,185


10.
White Fish Authority
230,650


11.
Surveys of Great Britain, &amp;c.
1,797,720


12.
Forestry Commission
4,359,000


13.
Development Fund
945,000


15.
Roads, &amp;c
22,946,000


16.
Mercantile Marine Services
289,250


18.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
3,610,950


19.
State Management Districts
90

£



Scotland:—



20.
Department of Agriculture
2,493,702


21.
Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000,000)
2,812,250


22.
Fisheries
820,199


23.
Herring Industry (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)
502,900


24.
State Management Districts
90




£88,663,990

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

That a sum, not exceeding £45,249,962, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Works
5,538,000


2.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
311,000


3.
Public Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £402,000)
19,687,000


4.
Public Buildings Overseas
1,302,000


5.
Royal Palaces
270,900


6.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
450,000


7.
Miscellaneous Works Services
211,000


8.
Rates on Government Property
7,015,635


9.
Stationery and Printing
9,228,727


10.
Central Office of Information
1,053,000


11.
Peterhead Harbour
35,000



Ireland:—



12.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
147,000




£45,249,962

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

That a sum, not exceeding £57,980,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
133,600


2.
Ministry of Pensions
52,421,000


3.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
625,000


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
4,801,100




£57,980,700

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

That a sum, not exceeding £291,313,329, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Supply
142,500,000


2.
Ministry of Supply (Assistance to Industry, Scrap Recovery, &amp;c.)
3,499,000


3.
Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
90


4.
Royal Ordnance Factories
9,000,000


5.
Ministry of Materials
812,750


6.
Ministry of Materials (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry) (including a Supplementary sum of £497,000)
3,634,010


7.
Ministry of Food (Revised sum)
104,157,069


8.
Ministry of Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
1,838,000


9.
Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)
5,152,000


10.
Foreign Office (German Section)
1,892,720


11.
Administration of certain African Territories
388,100


12.
Advances to Allies, &amp;c.
200,000


13.
War Damage Commission
928,500


14.
Burma War Damage Payments
113,000


15.
Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)
14,000


16.
Ministry of Supply (Strategic Reserves)
40,000


17.
Ministry of Materials (Strategic Reserves)
13,383,000


18.
Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)
3,761,000


19.
Tin
90




£291,313,329

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1952–53

That a sum, not exceeding £172,258,740, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953,for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:



£


1. Customs and Excise
7,650,200


2. Inland Revenue
20,875,540


3. Post Office
143,733,000



£172,258,740

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1952–53

That a sum, not exceeding £11,540,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence: expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations including contributions and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1952–53

That a sum, not exceeding £181,986,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:




£


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
1,368,000


4.
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
7,181,000


5.
Educational Services
910,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
1,460,000


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.:—




Section I.—Personnel
31,985,000



Section II.—Matériel
71,950,000



Section III. — Contract Work (Revised sum)
52,900,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
7,344,900


12.
Admiralty Office
6,866,000


14.
Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair
22,000




£181,986,900

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1952–53

That a sum, not exceeding £286,980,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:




£


3.
War Office
3,180,000


4.
Civilians
48,500,000


6.
Supplies, &amp;c.
47,900,000


7.
Stores (Revised sum)
186,000,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,400,000




£286,980,000

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1952–53

That a sum, not exceeding £108,120,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:





£


3.
Air Ministry
…
3,900,000


4.
Civilians at Outstations
…
26,120,000


5.
Movements
…
11,900,000


6.
Supplies
…
66,200,000





£108,120,000

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1953, the sum of £2,160,923,260 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (SEASONAL WORKERS)

9.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Amendment Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
The history of these Regulations is that in 1948 the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked the Advisory Committee to make a Report on the general question of seasonal workers. That Report was made, and the Seasonal Workers Regulations were based on that Report. They were introduced two years ago by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). Last year the right hon. Lady asked the Advisory Committee to review the working of the Regulations and to consider whether any amendment was desirable. The Advisory Committee made their Report which was published on 12th May, and these Regulations


which I ask the House to approve tonight are in complete conformity with that report.
Hon. Members will remember that the Seasonal Workers Regulations are designed to deal with the problems arising from employment which by its nature is limited to certain parts of the year. In order to protect other workers and the Insurance Fund, before such workers can obtain unemployment benefit in the off-season they have to satisfy two conditions. They must have registered at the local office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and they must prove that they can reasonably expect to obtain during the current off-season a substantial amount of employment.
As those conditions might create for them a difficulty when they attempted to obtain unemployment benefit in the on-season, they are given the advantageous condition of only having to show 13 Class I contributions paid or credited instead of 39 Class I contributions paid or credited.
The Advisory Committee have found that owing to certain decisions of the Commissioner a rigidity has been introduced into these Regulations that was not anticipated or desired, and an anomalous position has arisen. I think I can illustrate that by pointing out that under the Commissioner's decision if a person only works for 48 days in the year, provided he works for at least 12 days in each period of three consecutive months, he is not a seasonal worker; whereas a man who has worked for 274 days in a year may yet be classed as a seasonal worker.
The first and third amendments are designed to remove that anomaly and to put back into the Seasonal Workers Regulations the flexibility for which the House asked when they were first introduced. The second amendment is designed to deal with the possibility that in a period of adverse trade conditions a man might be classed as a seasonal worker by reason of those adverse trade conditions. That is not desired by anybody in any part of the House. We are, therefore, introducing the second amendment as recommended by the Advisory Committee to meet that position.
In view of the fact that these problems have been considered by the Advisory Committee and that all the representative

bodies have appeared before that Committee and given their views, I hope that the House will endorse the Committee's recommendations and approve these Regulations.

9.40 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I have no intention of opposing these Regulations, for by so doing I should be rejecting the advice of the Advisory Committee, who I know have gone to some trouble to devise a scheme which would meet the special needs of the seasonal workers. But I have a very vivid memory of a deputation which came to see me last year. That deputation represented the seasonal workers of the country, and I recall that the representatives of the agricultural workers made a special plea on behalf of the married women engaged in seasonal work. At that time I gave an undertaking that I would keep an eye on the working of the Regulations and if necessary I would seek to amend them on behalf of these special workers.
I have read the Report of the Advisory Committee and it is quite clear that they have examined the situation and believe that no hardship is involved. Despite that, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me a reassurance that he has given special consideration to the needs of these workers, about whose problem my hon. Friends, and perhaps hon. Members on the other side of the House, feel strongly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Gentlemen say, "Hear, hear," because I recall that last year hon. Members on both sides of the House felt rather strongly about this problem.
I think that the representatives of the agricultural workers, particularly, would like to put their point of view. As I have already said, I could not think of rejecting the advice of the Advisory Committee. They command the respect of the House and I know that the Chairman has taken a special interest in this matter. Although I shall not oppose these Regulations I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House the reassurance that I seek

9.43 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I have been critical of these Seasonal Workers Regulations ever since they were introduced. In saying what I have to


say tonight, I want to assure the House that I am trying to be consistent. I oppose or criticise these Regulations because I think that they prevent workers from getting benefits to which they are entitled.
I should like to follow up a point which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) in saying that I was not the only critic of these Regulations. A number of hon. Members on the other side of the House shared my criticism and, despite the fact that we have changed places in the interim period, I hope that those hon. Members who criticised the Regulations when they were on this side of the House will still be critical and join with me in asking the Minister to right a wrong.
I am concerned with seasonal workers in agriculture. The right hon. Lady said that representatives of the agricultural workers went to see her. May I say that representatives of the agricultural workers have this week been to see the hon. Gentleman who presented the Regulations to the House tonight. We expressed dissatisfaction with the old Regulations when they were introduced in 1950 and, arising from our complaint, the then Minister of National Insurance in August, 1951, asked the Advisory Committee to consider whether it was necessary to amend them.
We are very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West for having taken this step. I do not think she would have asked the Advisory Committee to have another look at these Regulations but for the fact that she was impressed by the case we put up. Later, representatives of the agricultural workers gave evidence before the Advisory Committee, and, as the House is aware, their Report has been issued. Apart from what I describe as a very minor modification, there are no changes in the Regulations.
The Committee appear to have taken account of the representations of the National Union of Agricultural Workers only to the extent of recommending the Minister of National Insurance to exercise discretionary powers where there is some doubt concerning the ability of the applicant to satisfy the benefit conditions laid down in the Regulations.
I repeat that the objections which my hon. Friends and I have to these Regulations are well known to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I suggest that the seasonal workers in agriculture should be regarded as quite apart because of the peculiar circumstances regarding employment in the farming industry. The point I desire to emphasise is that we have always drawn attention to the special position of seasonal workers in agriculture and have pointed out that a considerable part of the labour force in the Holland area of Lincolnshire is made up of seasonal agricultural workers who have no work available to them for approximately three months each winter.
A very important point is that there is no other available work on the land to which these people can turn their hand. These conditions are not peculiar to the Holland area of Lincolnshire. Similar conditions apply in other parts of the Fenland, in my own county of Norfolk, in Kent and in Worcestershire. This position was recognised by the Act in operation prior to the introduction of the present Regulations in 1950, because up to 1950 the seasonal worker was able to get benefit on satisfying the Ministry he had worked for 39 weeks in a season.
Since 1950, the worker has had to satisfy the conditions laid down in the Regulations, and the attempt to satisfy those conditions has resulted in some thousands of workers being disallowed benefit in the off-season. I want to quote a few paragraphs from the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, because they reveal the extent of this problem, a problem which some of us have to face. The Committee say:
It is estimated that the number of persons whose claims to unemployment benefit were specially considered under these Regulations during the year was approximately 23,000, of whom, after taking appeals into account, about 12,000 were disallowed for part, at least, of their off-season.
It goes on:
We have noted that the geographical distribution of claims from seasonal workers was uneven"—
although I am quoting the whole paragraph, I repeat that I am concerned particularly with the workers in agriculture—
claims were heaviest in Scotland (especially among fishermen on the north-east coast), but were also numerous in areas of arable and crop farming (such as the Fen district of East Anglia and the Holland division of Lincoln-


shire), and in holiday resorts. The industries chiefly affected were agriculture and horticulture, fishing, and the catering and entertainment trades, but there was also a substantial seasonal variation in employment under local authorities, including certain forms of employment by local education authorities.
The Report further states:
Women were chiefly affected, despite the fact that they take no part in one of the major seasonal occupations—fishing (except for certain ancillary employments). Out of a total of 21,029 claims during the year under review, 13,666 (65 per cent.) were from women, 7,110 (34 per cent.) were from men, and only 253 (1 per cent.) from young persons. The ratio of disallowances to total claims was also much higher in the case of women, being 10,140 (74 per cent.) as compared with 4,083 (57 per cent.) for men.
The Report deals, on pages 8 and 9, with the differing interpretations given by insurance officers and local tribunals in dealing with these claims.
It is proposed to amend the existing Regulations in such a way as to over-rule the decisions given by the Commissioners. This is a very important point. A very bad impression is created when one Minister gives an assurance that tribunals and Commissioners will safeguard the worker from harsh treatment at the hands of Ministry officials, and the next Minister designs Regulations to over-ride a Commissioner's decision.
The assurance to which I have referred was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West, and accepted by the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Agricultural Workers. If the present Minister changes those Regulations in such a way that any remaining loophole is closed, the workers concerned will have justification for feeling that the Regulations are designed entirely to prevent them from getting benefits when they are unable to find work. The result will be to discourage women workers from finding work on the land and to create difficulties in the industry. I consider the Regulations to be ill-advised and unfair to the workers, and that the effect of their working cannot fail to be ultimately detrimental to the agricultural industry.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I want to say a word about herring fishermen. The findings of the Committee are not exactly sympathetic towards them.
Herring fishermen want to work all the year round. Markets and the incidence of shoals break up the continuity of the year's work. Up to three years ago, there was practically no winter herring around the Scottish coast. Suddenly there was an influx of herring into the Minch in the winter, which gave more or less continuous work through the winter to the fishermen. It is wrong to classify herring fishermen as seasonal workers along with seaside workers or workers at the Battersea Fun Fair. They are on the job all the time, ready to go to sea when conditions of weather and markets permit.
One other consideration militates against complete employment of herring fishermen and that is that they know nothing about what is to happen to the grant and loan schemes. The solution of the herring fishermen's continuous working is the dual-purpose vessel. If they are constrained to use the old type of drifter they can only work in the herring season, but with a dual-purpose vessel the fisherman can switch over to other fishing. That is a factor wherein the Government play a part.
That leads me to plead urgently with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion that his officers shall treat the cases of herring fishermen with sympathy and knowledge. The ruling that was given by the Official Referee a year ago worked very well for fishermen and with absolute fairness to the taxpayer. I sincerely trust that the Minister will keep these matters in mind and ensure that his officials do not treat the cases of herring fishermen along hard-and-fast lines. Local knowledge and sympathy are necessary here, because we cannot afford to do without these men.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I want to make one point arising from what was said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) with reference to agricultural workers. Many of them are women workers who cannot get employment during the winter and to whom no other source of employment is available. I know the trouble which arose two years ago when these Regulations were first introduced, and on reading the Report of the Advisory Committee I was surprised and disappointed to notice that the Committee found that the


Regulations affecting these agricultural workers were neither too lenient nor too harsh. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about the position of these workers when he winds up the debate.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I intervene because I also have a constituency problem here. Deputations from the National Union of Agricultural Workers have, on many occasions since I was first elected to this House, represented the case to me which was put so eloquently this evening by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch). During the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) I interjected "Hear, hear" because she will remember kindly receiving deputations from me during her period of office at the Ministry of National Insurance. She told me then of the establishment of this Advisory Committee and what it was hoped to achieve by it.
I am rather disappointed with what the committee have achieved, although I realise that they have sedulously examined all the problems inherent in seasonal working, notably in the horticultural areas. There is a grave problem here which can be exemplified by what takes place in my own constituency. In the western part of Worcestershire we grow large quantities of hops and fruit. I believe that in the course of the next few years economic conditions will make it vitally necessary for us to increase still further the home production of fruit and to reduce the amount of imported fruit because of foreign exchange and other considerations.
That will require an increasing number of seasonal workers, and the effect of the current insurance Regulations is to discourage married women from going into the hop gardens and into the fruit orchards in this short period of the harvest, which places an undue burden on the shoulders of the farmers. This year, of course, they cannot sell all their fruit because there is too much. There may well be, however, a state of affairs in future years when a large part of the fruit crop goes to waste simply because insufficient seasonal workers are available. The reason, in my view, will be

the deterrent and the discouragement provided by the National Insurance Regulations.
It should not be beyond the bounds of practical possibility to have special scales of contribution for seasonal workers and special benefits for them. They are a community very much apart from normal, full-time workers. The conditions of seasonal workers in all parts of the country are similar whether they are herring fishermen in the North-Eastern part of Scotland or fruit pickers in Worcestershire.

Mr. Duthie: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? I hope he is not confusing fruit pickers in Worcestershire with herring fishermen in the North-East of Scotland. We catch herring all the year round, but fruit is picked only in the season.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but there are a fair number of seasonal workers in Scotland, whether they are married women or others. The National Insurance deterrents to which I am referring apply equally to those workers to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded as to those to whom I alluded.
I should have thought that it was possible in the passage of time to evolve a system whereby special contributions and special benefits were applicable to seasonal workers in all the industries and trades to which we have referred tonight. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies can give some encouragement that it is his ambition to go forward to an arrangement of that sort in the years ahead.

Mr. T. Driberg: Like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I represent a constituency in which there is a great deal of seasonal fruit picking of various horticultural crops. I wish to put merely one brief question to the hon. Gentleman, with which, I hope, he can deal for my enlightenment.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say to what extent the seasonal workers who are not resident—that is to say, not the wives of agricultural workers, and so on, but the migratory workers who come round every year to do pea picking, strawberry picking and other work of that kind—are covered under the Regulations?

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Turton: In answer, first, to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), migrant workers of that type do not fall foul of any Seasonal Workers Regulations because they can satisfy the availability for employment test; they are moving from employment to employment.
The problem here is quite different, whether it relates to the fishermen about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) talked, or the agricultural workers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) referred. Let me deal with the point regarding the fishermen first.
The Committee in their Report said they were satisfied that the Regulations were working equitably for fishermen. It is difficult to administer unemployment benefit for fishermen, but my hon. Friend must remember that originally many fishermen were not in the unemployment benefit scheme. They were brought in as share fishermen as a special concession. They were told that if they were brought in they must conform to the seasonal workers rules, and that we could not possibly have a special scheme of Seasonal Workers Regulations for share or other fishermen.
Regarding agricultural workers, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North appeared rather to base his argument on the assumption that the workers in his constituency were satisfied with the Commissioners' decision, which is now being altered. I believe I am right in saying, however, that the representative of his own union, before the Advisory Committee, pointed out how rigid was that rule and what anomalies it would create. Therefore, we are helping the hon. Member's union, as well as the constituents of many other hon. Members, in altering that decision by the new Regulations.

Mr. Gooch: What I said was that an attempt was being made to override the Commissioners' decision by the Regulations now before the House.

Mr. Turton: By these Regulations, we are bringing back the flexibility of the Regulations first introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). The real burden of the argument, both of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and of the two hon. Members from Norfolk, is that there should be a special scheme for seasonal agricultural workers.
The House must remember that that was the case before the war. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North talked of those days when agricultural workers could get benefit for 90 days. But that was under the old scheme, where those workers got far worse treatment than being brought in under the general scheme of unemployment insurance benefit. Before the war, the unemployed seasonal worker in agriculture could draw out in benefit only what he had paid in contributions; he was limited by that maximum. I am sure that neither the hon. Member for Norfolk, North nor anyone else wants to go back to those days.

Mr. Gooch: I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Turton: The assurance I can give—it was asked for by the right hon. Lady—is that we will watch very closely the working of the Regulations to see that they are fair and equitable, not only to agricultural workers, but also to fishermen and other seasonal workers. If we find that they are not working equitably or fairly, we will take appropriate action.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Amendment Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WOOL INDUSTRY (RESEARCH LEVY)

10.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
This Order amends in one particular the 1950 Order which provided for a levy under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, to furnish funds for the Wool Textile Research Council. The original Order was approved by this House on 24th October, 1950, after a speech of admirable brevity by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). He was supported by some of my hon. Friends and the House was of one mind in approving that Order. I think I shall be doing what the House desires if I use the same brevity.
The levy is collected by the Board of Trade and paid to the Wool Textile Research Council. That Council is composed of representatives of the Wool Industry Research Association, Leeds University, the Association of Principals of Technical Institutions and organisations representing employers and employed in the industry, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research sends an observer to its meetings.
The Wool Textile Research Council in turn reimburses the expenses incurred by the various bodies, in particular the Wool Industry Research Association, the universities and technical colleges. The present Order simply increases the levy. It has been asked for by both sides of the industry, by the Wool Textile Delegation and by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade. The reason is the increased cost of the excellent research work that is being carried out.
As required by the Act, the Board of Trade have consulted other representative organisations. Apart from those who asked for this Order, 14 were consulted and there was only one dissentient. That was the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers, but I would remind the House that the only members of the car-

pet manufacturing industry who are required to pay the levy are those who spin the yarn which they use. The remainder of the processes are expressly excluded from the definition of the wool textile industry in the Order and, as a result, carpet manufacturers are not liable to pay in respect of operatives employed in subsequent processes.
A great part of the money goes to the Wool Industries Research Association, which also receives a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, who regard an expanding programme of work as essential. The levy as first introduced was estimated to produce between £100,000 and £120,000 a year. It in fact produced £114,000 in the first year. In the first six months of this year about £48,000 has been collected and, if the amended rate had been in operation, the figure would have been about £70,000. I think that places the House in possession of the essential information.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: There are a few comments I wish to make on this Order. I am of opinion that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be very thankful that the Labour Government passed the Industrial Organisation Development Act when they did in 1947, because otherwise they would be unable to get the funds to support the research going on in the wool industry today.
The Research Association is in great difficulty, and I think a new formula will have to be found before very long to meet the needs of collection. At the moment it is on the basis of the raw material used and the number of employees engaged in the trade. The real reason for the Parliamentary Secretary coming to the House tonight is because of the difficulties that the wool industry is experiencing at the present time. It is not using as much raw material, and its revenue has fallen because of that decrease. There are not as many people employed in the industry as formerly, and so they are also losing revenue on that account.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that some thinking should be done about whether a new method can be evolved to produce a steady income,


irrespective of whether times are lean or prosperous. It seems ridiculous that an industry which, according to the figures I have in my possession, showed net profits during the year 1949–50 amounting to £20 million, cannot subscribe more than £75,000 in a year towards its own research. When we consider that £75,000 against the amount of profits of £20 million, it represents only ·375 per cent. It is really not good enough, and what I should like to see is something done to stabilise the position so that in either lean times or good there is a steady income.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it is that he has assessed the new increase on operatives? Why not on the raw material as well? I hope he will be able to tell us that. In the Working Party's recommendations it was suggested that 75 per cent. of the moneys raised and put to the use of research through the Wool Textile Research Council should go to the Research Association. I am not sure whether the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given will cover the exigencies of the position.
For instance, 75 per cent. of the £100,000 would not put them in the position of being able to get a grant from the D.S.I.R. this year. As I understand it, for the first two years, 1951 to 1953, the industry must voluntarily subscribe something like £80,000 before it is able to get the £30,000 grant from the D.S.I.R. If it subscribes more than £80,000, for every £100 raised it gets £100 from the D.S.I.R. to a maximum of £60,000; which means a minimum of £30,000 and a maximm of £60,000. After 1953, to 1956, it rises to £100,000.
Therefore, if the same formula is applied that the Wool Research Association gets something in the region of 75 per cent. of the gross revenue of the Research Council, it would mean that instead of approximately £114,000, which the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested would be raised under the scheme, something in the region of £133,000 would be needed to give the Wool Research Association £100,000.
It is necessary for the Research Association to have this money. I hope that some means will be found so that a regu-

lar income can be provided for research in this industry. The Association are doing a first-class job, and I wish them well. I have no objections other than those which I have mentioned.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), I welcome the faithful way in which the Government are carrying out the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, which they opposed so bitterly when the Labour Government introduced it. It is satisfactory to find that they see the need for this degree of organisation in industry. I do not wish to go too wide of the subject, which I know is narrow, but a number of points arise on this amending Order which are of great importance. The Parliamentary Secretary should "come clean" and tell the House why exactly it is necessary to increase the rate of levy on the wool textile industry.
He has given certain figures about the amount of money which has been received and which was anticipated in connection with this levy. He told us that the original figure hoped for was something in the neighbourhood of £100,000 and £120,000. I am specially interested in in these figures, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will help me. The matter is difficult. I should like to know whether these figures are correct.
I understand that last year £114,000 was obtained through the 2d. levy. This year, in the first six months, the total is only £48,000, which would pre-suppose that the levy would yield on the same basis, if unemployment does not increase, no more than £96,000. Surely we should have some explanation in the House for the fall in the amount of the levy. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given any explanation.
The former Parliamentary Secretary stated straightforwardly that it is obviously due to the decline in trade in the wool textile industry. It is due to the fact that less wool is consumed. Because this levy is, to some extent, based on the amount of wool consumed, the amount which comes in under it is reduced. It is also based on the numbers employed in the textile industry.
Here we come once again to the consequences of the policies of this Government. As a result of their failure to deal with the growing unemployment in the textile industry, we are confronted here in a small way by a short-fall of funds which are essential for the development of this vital industry. This is a misfortune which is besetting the whole of the textile industry.
The matter is further complicated because of the decision of the Government not to increase at a suitable rate the funds made available to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is a bit thick for the Parliamentary Secretary to come to the House and to tell us that the money is not enough and that therefore the levy must be increased. I should like to hear what the figures are on which this calculation is based. What are the employment figures accepted in the industry? What are the figures for the consumption of wool? We should like to know the Government's estimates of the prospects of the industry.
It may well be that if we are to hope to recover our position in the world and to improve employment in the textile industry a great deal more money ought to be spent on research to give us the technological advances which will be necessary to enable us to compete in the highly competitive world market. I do not think we ought to leave this subject until we have had a much fuller explanation. This is something which affects very deeply the lives of large numbers of people in Yorkshire, and yet we have had, from the opening speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, no real reference to the cause of the decline of these funds. I hope the debate will be carried on until we have had a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I only wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions, because it is too late to develop anything else. Will he explain to the House how the Scottish section of the industry stands in regard to this Order? Secondly, is it true that the centre of the organisation in the wool industry of this country is based upon Bradford; and, if it is true, whether the Scottish section has only one representative on that organisation for all the interests in Scotland?

10.22 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I cannot, of course, speak on the Scottish aspects of this question with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), nor have I the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackle-ton) for speaking on the subject of research generally, because he has made a very deep study of it. Certainly, neither I nor, I think, any other Member of the House, can speak with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who began as a weaver and is now a manufacturer of fine cloth, and has been through all the gamut of the practical problems in the industry.
However, if I may say so with due modesty, I have had experience in all the four main branches of the textile industry—cotton, synthetic fibres, jute and wool—as a consultant, and I have been able to compare the different practices in research and in the development of technique in these different sectors of the textile industry, which, though they have many differences between them, have, especially in the field of research and development, very many similarities as well. I am sorry to say that, of those four runners in the race, wool cannot be placed higher than in the third place, so far as its expenditure on and the care and efficacy of its work in research are concerned.
We shall, of course, support this Order because the effect of it is to make more money available for research in an industry which, goodness knows, needs much more research than it has ever had in the past, and much more even than it is likely to get under the provisions of the Order we are now discussing. Everybody in the House, and almost everybody in the country, has in the last few years come round to understanding, as few people have understood for very many years, that we need a much greater expenditure on research, and a much greater devotion of skill, manpower, thought and imagination to research, if we are to improve, let alone maintain, the efficiency of British industry and its power to compete in world markets.
Every one, or almost every one, is now seized of that fact, largely because of the educative effect of measures taken in this


direction by the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951, and not least by the inspiration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). We on this side are delighted to see the most welcome, if a little belated, conversion of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the understanding of the fact that we need a greater application of research to our industry.
While welcoming this Order, and speaking in support of it, and, if need be, voting in support of it, though I hope that will not be necessary, I would, nevertheless, like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions and put one or two points to him, and I am sure that the House will gladly give him leave to speak again.
On paper, this Order looks as though it is making a very sharp increase in expenditure in research in the wool textile industry from 2d. per unit to 3.4 pence per unit. On paper that looks like a 70 per cent. increase. In fact, it is not, because, as we all know to our cost—and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South, referred to this—one of the reasons for that increase is the fact that unhappily this year the number of employment units—and unfortunately that is what they are called in this legislation; and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a stickler for good English, must feel a knife turn in his soul every time he uses the term; it is a pity he is not listening—

Mr. H. Strauss: I resent hon. Members opposite saying that I am not listening when I am making a note of the points they have raised in the hope of being helpful in reply. The fact that I am taking a note of the speech does not mean that I am not listening.

Mr. Mikardo: I immediately and sincerely apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It looked as though he were busying himself with other matters.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Doodling.

Mr. Mikardo: We know that his great talents allow him to do two things at once, although there are not many of us who, when we do two things at once, are capable of doing either of them really

well. If I did him an injustice, I immediately apologise.
What I was saying before I was led astray—and perhaps that was my own fault—was that one of the reasons for the increased rate of the levy per employment unit was unhappily that the number of employment units in the industry would be smaller this year. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to blame anybody for that he might look across the square in the direction of the Treasury. That is one of the reasons for the increase in the rate of levy per employment unit, and the increase in the amount of money raised will not be anything like so great as is suggested by the 70 per cent. increase in the rate of levy per employment unit. The increase is not, indeed, as sharp as appears on the surface.
One of the questions which I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is this. Under the new Order, and with the new amount which will be spent by the industry, how does the expenditure on research of the British woollen industry compare with the expenditure on research by woollen industries in other countries with whose product our woollen textile industry has to compete? I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary what is my impression of the answer to that question—and I do not for one second pretend that it is authoritative, but I put to him my impression in the hope, indeed in the expectation, that to whatever extent I am wrong, he will correct me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, this sum will represent an expenditure on research of about three-eighths of 1 per cent. of what has been roughly calculated to be the last full year's profits of the industry. I have an idea—not merely an impression, because it is based on some study—that in the United States of America the wool textile industry, which is younger than ours, much less skilled than ours and with nothing like the design or the craft or the work traditions of our industry, spends on research something approaching 1 per cent., not of its profits but of its turnover. There is a very wide gap between 1 per cent. of turnover and three-eighths of 1 per cent. of profits.
Of course, this situation is not confined to wool. I should quickly run myself out of order and be reproved by


you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I quoted any other examples, but perhaps you will allow me to say in half a sentence that the disproportion which I have quoted for wool is paralleled by a large number of other major industries in the country. There again the expenditure on research in other countries is a much greater proportion of turnover, or of profit, or of numbers of people employed, or of yardage, or of lbs. weight of wool spun, or whatever calculation you like, than in this country. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether I am not right in saying that, even under this new Order the amount of money the British wool textile industry will be spending on research per whatever you like—per worker, per yard, per loom, what you will—will still be very very much less than is spent by those countries with whose products our woollen manufacturers have to compete.
There are two other points that I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary about the money which will be raised under this Order, and they both concern the allocation of this money, one as between the different institutions that will receive it and the other as between the different types of research work to which it will be devoted.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that amongst the institutions which will be assisted under this scheme are the establishments of the Wool Research Association, the universities and technical colleges, and he said the great part—I think those were his words—of the money goes to the establishments of the Wool Research Association. I think I am accurate in saying that the overwhelmingly greater part goes to the establishments of the Wool Research Association, and only a much smaller part to the universities and the technical colleges.
Of course, there is a certain pressure, an incentive, to get adequate finance for the Wool Research Association's establishments because, I think I am right in saying, it is not until they get £80,000 a year of their own that they qualify for the £30,000 a year D.S.I.R. grant. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is quite right in insisting that its own monetary help to industrial research shall be conditional upon each industry helping itself, and it is quite

right to give the industry an incentive properly to give resources to its own research establishments before the D.S.I.R. come along and, so to speak, tops the thing up with an additional grant.
Unfortunately, there is one bad effect arising out of this situation. The fact that there is rather an arbitrary figure which the Wool Research Association has got to reach for its establishments before it qualifies for the D.S.I.R. grant means that the allocation of the money between, on the one hand, the Association's establishments and, on the other hand, the universities and technical colleges is not made on an assessment of which of these institutions can usefully use that money, is not made on an assessment of the forward research programmes of the institutions and an assessment of what money those programmes will require, but it is made frightfully arbitrary by saying, "We have got to give this to the Wool Research Association whether they are in a position to use it well or not so that we get the D.S.I.R. money, and after that the University of Leeds and the technical colleges of the West Riding and elsewhere can have what is left over, after we have given the Research Association enough money to qualify for the D.S.I.R. grant, whether it needs that much money, or wants it or not."
That really is a very great pity because, although I pay very great tribute to the research establishments of the Wool Research Association, which are doing very good work, I do not think anybody with first-hand experience of the work—and I am sure I carry with me in this my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who knows a very great deal about it—will dispute that the most forward looking and the most imaginative research work in the industry is not done in the Research Association establishments but in industry. The most useful work in the industry, the most practical immediate work in the industry, the base work of application of research to working methods—that is done most of all in the technical colleges.
I am afraid that what the Wool Research Association does is to fall between two stools. It is neither fundamental, long term, basic, general research; nor is it research on immediate application of known knowledge, the


known corpus of knowledge, to the actual work in the factory. Both those two things are very necessary, but as the immediate, short term problem in industry the second is more necessary than the first.
We have almost got to the stage in wool—with the hundreds of years this country has been a great producer of fine woollen cloths—when what we want in the industry is not to get more knowledge by research, but to find out ways of applying more widely the knowledge we have got. That is work being done preeminently in the technical colleges, and the real, fundamental research into the things which condition what the industry will be likely to be doing in 10 or 15 years' time is being done at the universities, and what the Wool Research Association is doing for the most part is some nebulous thing in between those two things.
It is spending too much of its time and money on the unprogrammed, non schematic finding of the answers to ad hoc questions put up to it by manufacturers who are members of the Research Association. The Research Association cannot refuse to give assistance in this direction and to attempt to answer questions that are put un to it by people who are actually subscribers to its funds, and if some manufacturer who finds a snag in his finishing process, or that one of his machines starts to finish a bit squiffy one week and to turn out finishing work that is not standard, and the finishing shop foreman cannot find the answer to it, there is a great temptation to ring up the Research Association and say, "What's wrong with this machine? It is turning out stuff with spots the size of a halfpenny along the selvedge." The Association immediately devotes its mind to it, and to answering such requests for help from its subscribers. I am not saying at all that this is not useful. It is very useful; it has considerable practical effect; but it really does not supply the answer to what are the fundamental problems of the woollen industry.
Therefore, I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the allocation of the money under this Order—and I know that, as a former worker in this House for the universities, and one with knowledge of education and research, I shall

strike a chord in him when I invite him to consider the way he is to allocate it under this Order, and how it is going to be spent—whether, in his judgment, starting from a blank sheet of paper, the allocation of this money as between the universities and technical colleges, on the one hand, and the research establishments on the other, is the best way to enable the industry to make the best progress and to enable us to get the best out of it.
The second point I ant to make—and I apologise for talking so long—about allocation I have already touched on, and that is the allocation as between different types of work. We all realise, of course, that the maintenance of quality in the products of this industry is at least as important for the welfare of the industry as it is in the case of any other industry, but, of course, there are other factors which need to be considered as well as the purely qualitative factors—to an increasing extent when the products of our wool mills are meeting price competition in overseas markets; and we have, therefore, got to get, not so much better quality for the same money, so to speak, but the same quality at a lower price.
Therefore, we have to consider operative savings. We cannot do much unilaterally about the price of raw material, and the fundamental difference between the woollen textiles, on the one hand, and other textiles like jute, cotton or synthetic fibres, on the other. In wool a much higher proportion of the cost of the end product consists of raw material costs than it does in the case of any other textile. Therefore, wool is much more than any textile industry at the mercy of the wool fluctuations of world markets, over which at best we have only marginal control.
We have got to help ourselves where it lies within our power to do so, and that is in the field of labour costs. In that field undoubtedly the place where most saving is to be made is in weaving. In the past we have, I believe, concentrated too much on the design and operation of the machine, that is to say, the loom, and far too little to a study of whether we are using the right raw materials in each case for the cloth we want to produce.
One reason why the woollen textile industries are much less efficient than the metal industries, speaking generally, is


that in the metal industries raw materials are bought to specification. A manufacturer says, "I want a one inch steel bar of a certain kind," and he figures how much compression strength and hardness that is wanted, the material is specified on that basis. Then it is tested in the store to see if it has those characteristics, and the manufacturer does not pay for it if it has not the characteristics which he ordered. If it has, he can put it in his shop knowing it is going to behave in the way he planned. He knows the degree of skill that is going to be required to handle that article, because he knows the material—if I may use a factory phrase—will not get up on its hind legs and behave awkwardly.
It is much more difficult to do that with a natural raw material or vegetable material, like wool or cotton, than it is with a mineral material like steel, but within certain limits it is possible to certify materials. A manufacturer knows that if a given cloth is to be woven on a loom which is exerting a given tension, he wants a yarn of this much strength and certainly no less because it will break and mending the breaks will cost money, and certainly no more, because if it is too high a quality he is paying more for the raw materials than that particular cloth happens to need.
I believe that here there is an enormous field of research for the research establishments. In a very humble way I have been doing a little myself, and I have tried to apply to this standardisation and specification of yarn some of the statistical techniques of quality control that are used in industries like engineering and the manufacture of electric lamps. This is a large-scale job, and I should like to think that something like one-third of the money we are here asked for in this Order was going to be devoted over the next year or two to study along those lines, because I am quite satisfied that if the Parliamentary Secretary asks he will find that many people agree that it is in this direction that the next significant advance will have to be made in increasing efficiency in the operation of weaving woollen cloth.
That is the sort of thing that is scarcely being done at all. Either there are people doing large-scale, long-term fundamental research, or those concerned on how para-

sites in a sheep's back will affect one's fifth process in finishing for dyeing a year later. That is all very pretty, and interesting in an academic way, but it is not of immediate concern. Or, there are people answering ad hoc questions on matters popping up in one factory, or on one particular machine, which are not duplicated anywhere else for a long time, if at all.
We need a better programme of woollen industry research through the Wool Research Association's establishments, but I believe that it lies particularly in the universities; to a lesser extent in the technical colleges, where we shall find a capacity for doing a programme of that sort in the shape of a really schematic piece of research in wool textiles.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary would be dealing with autonomous bodies, jealous of their own independence, and jealous of what he might suggest but he is a persuasive, as well as an honourable Gentleman, and if he devoted his mind to these matters he could, without interfering with the plans of anybody, persuade these authorities to have a look at this matter. I beg of him to make a first-hand study of the subject and see if he does not, as a result, reach something like the conclusions which, in all humility, I have endeavoured to put before him.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sure the House is grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), with which I agree, and to which I would add that the matter becomes the concern of Oldham. With unemployment existing there in the one textile industry, and while the only alternative industry within practical reach has large-scale unemployment, one point on which I find myself in some agreement with him is when he says that this Order is born in tragedy and less money is being spent on research than before. The widespread unemployment means that there is less revenue for research in times of increasing difficulties.

Sir William Darling: The revenue is not based on employment or unemployment, but on the units in the industry.

Mr. Hale: The levy has been increased because of the unemployment, as I understand it; the levy per person has been increased to give the same revenue. But we are glad to hear the view of the hon. Member, although I must point out to him that the figures seem to be different from last year.
It is a major disaster that, in the north of England, where prosperity has been built largely on textiles, but which has also endured long periods of unemployment, that there should be an affliction spreading over both industries concurrently, with the sufferings of each added to by the lack of alternatives. After all, this is of immediate concern to Oldham; for, from its main street, one can see the beginning of the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman); although perhaps the Colne Valley area is a little nearer; and it is the home of the woollen industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South made the point that the cost of the raw material in the woollen textile industry is relatively the highest of any industry in comparison with final production costs. That is the major disaster of both textile industries, for in both the cost of the raw material is abnormally high compared with the price of the finished product. Therefore, when we look at the history of the last five or six years, it is surprising that every time we have talked about bilateral treaties or the planning of purchases to get a stable price, we have had sneers from hon. Members opposite, who have managed to introduce widespread unemployment in the industry within the course of a few months.
It is a great tragedy that the restriction of credit policy of the Chancellor has helped to aggravate this serious question in both industries at the same time. That, couplied with the change of economic policy, has brought tragic results to Lancashire and Yorkshire and is causing widespread difficulties.
As I understand the Order, this levy is purely for scientific research and does not cover market research. But market research is fundamental, especially in view of the abolition of the British Export Trade Research Organisation, which was trying to do something—perhaps not as

much as was hoped—in that connection. The Cotton Board has done a great deal for the cotton textile industry, but so far as I know there is now no one looking after this vitally important subject of research in the woollen industry.
That becomes vital when we read that textile organisers in Lancashire and Yorkshire are now, in desperation, advising workers to seek employment in some other industry. It is a great tragedy, but none who has seen what has happened over the last few months can fail to see that such advice can be given honestly and seriously. The first duty of the Board of Trade at this time is to look into the question of market research.
My hon. Friend gave figures that surprised me. He suggested that in U.S.A. something like 1 per cent. of turnover is being invested in general research; in this country it is, I believe, three-eighths of 1 per cent. of the profits. Certainly none can question that we are very far behind competing countries in this respect, and indeed far behind countries that can compete on relatively favourable terms because they have the raw materials more readily available and more control over purchasing price. These are very grave matters to which the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope, will give attention tonight.
The grave question that confronts Lancashire and Yorkshire today is. Are these people to stay at their work and hope conditions will change for the better, when most people are prophesying they will change for the worse; or are they to start that miserable trek from north to south, looking for work, which occurred in years gone by?
When the magnitude of the problem is considered, it is amazing that tonight we should be discussing so small a palliative as a modest variation of the amount to be invested in purely scientific research in the wool industry. Since we are within a few days of the termination of the Sittings of this House—and I am sorry we are rising for August, September, and part of October at a time when many people out of work feel we ought to be studying their problems and trying to find remedies for the disastrous situation—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity of telling us something of what the Government's plans are for the woollen and cotton textile indus-


tries, what is their policy, and what are their expectation. Let him at least give some advice to those people who are waiting for it.
My hon. Friend has fairly said that very much work in pure scientific research, both in wool and cotton, is being done at the universities. The Woollen Research Organisation, which gets, after all, only a modest grant out of this levy, is pursuing a more limited field of research. The question of market research is perhaps the most important of all. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether anyone is conducting widespread market research on behalf of the industry; whether there is anyone trying to anticipate the needs of the world today and, indeed, trying, I hope—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member has touched upon this before. I cannot see how it arises on this Order, though the question of scientific research does.

Mr. Hale: It arises in this way. We are being asked to pass an Order which provides for a levy for woollen industry research. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how that money will be apportioned; how much will be spent on scientific research; how much on market research; how much on export research; how much on the production of raw materials, and so on. Clearly such a levy can cover every aspect of the trade. I express a slight apprehension that it does not cover every aspect, and that we ought to know how much is being allocated to each.
There is a final point. The Orders made on this matter by the previous Government were mandatory. They provided penalties for breach and penalties for people who did not co-operate to the full. So far as I am aware, no proceedings have ever been taken by this Government or the last in respect of a breach of any of these Orders. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to say what is the amount of co-operation that he is getting; how many times investigations have taken place, whether by his Department or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, into breaches; and how many times proceedings have been taken.
It would help the House to say whether the industry is co-operating fully in this provision of research and whether the

levies are being paid without difficulty. It would also assist if we knew whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was getting from the industry that co-operation which, in its present state, is absolutely vital if we are to maintain any hope of prosperity.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I wish to say a few words in courtesy to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. My predecessor in office, who welcomed this Order, suggested that there might be a case for revising the whole basis. I do not think that it would be in order to discuss that now, but what he said will be noted. I promise that that will be considered.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked for details of the figures. The figures he quoted were right, as far as they went. For the last half year, the figure is the amount which has so far been collected. I have no doubt that that represents the bulk.
While I am on the question of figures, I might mention a point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He was under a slight misapprehension when he said that as a result of this Order less money would be spent on research than before. More money for research is contemplated as a result of this Order though, of course, if the basis of computation had remained exactly the same, an even greater improvement might have been effected by the alteration of the rate.
The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) asked about Scotland. Scotland is within the Order. The Order applies to Great Britain, and the representative body on the Council is the National Association of Scottish Woollen Manufacturers. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), to whose interesting speech I listened carefully, asked me various questions with only some of which I can deal. He attacked me for the expression "employment unit", being apparently under the impression that what that meant was an employee. But, of course, it does not mean that. The hon. Gentleman will find the definition in sub-paragraph 3 of article 4 of the original Order, and when he studies that he will see that there is good reason for the use of that expression.
The hon. Member also asked me if I could give a comparison of the amounts


spent in research in other countries. I cannot give that comparison tonight, but I can tell him that the £100,000 that the Research Association gets to attract a grant from the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research, together with that grant, is calculated by these bodies to suffice for the excellent programme they have in mind. He made suggestions about the allocation between institutions and between forms of research, but as he will understand the determination of that matter is not for the Board of Trade, but for the organisation to whom the money is handed over. There are a great variety of researches being made, from the breeding of sheep to machinery, but they are all scientific research.
Another matter on which I was asked a direct question was why the revision made in this amending Order was wholly on the employment unit and not on the other part of the calculation. I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, South who asked the question, but the answer is simple. It was the request of both sides of the industry, the employers and the trade unions. I think that has answered the main questions, and I hope that the House will now give approval to an Order which has been proposed, and is desired, by both sides of this industry, and to which my predecessor in office—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—who has great knowledge of this industry, has given his approval.

Mr. Hale: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not reply to my question whether there is any market research going on.

Mr. Pryde: I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman would answer the second part of my question, which was to inquire whether it was true that the Scottish section of this industry had only one representative on the Wool Board.

Mr. Strauss: I gave the name of the Scottish representative on the Council.

Mr. Shackleton: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify one point about the employment unit? He will recall that there was an interruption by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir William Darling), who said that this had nothing to do

with the numbers employed in the industry, but the Parliamentary Secretary has still not answered the question whether the decline in money is caused by a decline in employment and a consequent decline in the amount of wool used.

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Gentleman will examine the principal Order he will find that the amount of the levy depends on two things, the employment unit and the materials. No doubt there has been some decline in each, explained by the decline in trade. To give one set of figures, that part of the levy which came last year from what I might call the employment unit was £70,000, and that from the supply and consumption of fibre was £44,000. The amount so far collected in the first six months of this year is £31,000, under the heading of employment unit, and £17,000 under the heading of supply and consumption of fibre.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 22nd July.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(WITHDRAWAL OF REBATE ON HEAVY OILS USED FOR ROAD TRANSPORT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: When we were interrupted on the morning of 23rd July, we were discussing Clause 2, with particular reference to subsection (2), and I would like to pursue for a few minutes longer the discussion we had on that point, because I do not think the Financial Secretary had a full opportunity of dealing with the whole aspect of the matter which I raised in my previous intervention.
If the Committee will look in the Report of the proceedings, which is available now, for the morning of 23rd


July, in col. 484 of HANSARD, they will see what appears to be an intervention in the speech of the Financial Secretary by the Leader of the House. The Financial Secretary was seeking to deal with the point I had raised, and then the Leader of the House got up and moved to report Progress. It would therefore be most unjust of me to criticise the Financial Secretary for not having dealt fully with the point I raised, because it is quite clear that he got cut short in his peroration or an earlier part of his remarks.
We all sympathise with the Financial Secretary in the embarrassing situation in which he found himself, and it was very much against the grain of many of us that we had to support the Motion which was put by the Leader of the House. The point I raised, which I do not believe was dealt with fully by the Financial Secretary, was this; end I apologise for having to recapitulate briefly. If we had proceded with the discussion at that time, it would not have been necessary to do so.
I see one or two hon. Members who were not here on that occasion, and so it is necessary to recapitulate the point to which the Financial Secretary did not direct his reply. My argument was this: that in this Clause, in subsection (2), there is the reference to 8th August and, coupled with that, there is a reference in the previous Clause to 18th June.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I will refer in a few minutes to another aspect of the question that has been raised on this matter. It is necessary to recapitulate in a few sentences the point that had arisen when we were interrupted by the intervention of the Leader of the House on the earlier occasion. I must say that it is something of a pity that we do not see him sitting on the Front Bench tonight, because, if he is to come along and make these startling interventions in the debate which have held up the proceedings on this Bill, he should be here to see what has happened, and to see whether he was justified on the previous occasion in

interrupting the speech of the Financial Secretary by moving to report Progress.
The argument is this. We had drawn attention to the subsection which refers to the date of 8th August, and to the subsection in another Clause dealing with a similar point, which referred to 18th June. It had been suggested, both by myself and my right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, that this was a case of retrospective legislation, and we made a few comments on that subject.
The reply of the Financial Secretary was that this was not retrospective legislation at all, that this legislation was on all fours with the financial legislation introduced into this House, that Resolutions are passed through quickly and the business put into operation, and that it may be some weeks later before the actual Bill is put before the House. That was the argument of the Financial Secretary, and he said that the Parliament in the Isle of Man works on a similar basis, and that, therefore, there is an exact comparison between this Measure when it operates there and the financial legislation in this House. I think I have summarised the hon. Gentleman's argument accurately.
What I think he left out of account, and in which he failed to answer the questions I had put to him, was that it is all very well to have a process which cannot be described as retrospective, but in which, in order to get the system working at all, we have to have an arrangement whereby the Government introduce financial legislation and move Resolutions to put into operation immediately proposals which might be validated a few weeks later by the discussion on a Bill. That is all right in the case of a sovereign Parliament, but there is an entirely different situation when we have another Parliament superimposing its Measure on a Measure which has been passed through the Parliament of the Isle of Man. I am not discussing whether the legislation passed through the Isle of Man Parliament is passed at a time when the two Houses are meeting together, or by one House at a time—

Mr, Leslie Hale: It is passed by the Lieut.-Governor, the Representatives of the House of Keys and the general Members of the Assembly all meeting together.

Mr. Foot: It would be out of order for us to discuss the way in which they conduct their affairs in the Isle of Man. What we are discussing is whether the Bill presented to this House involves retrospective legislation, and it was in an extension of that argument that I went on to say that, if this is not retrospective legislation and if there is no taint of retrospective legislation involved here, presumably, it is not open to us to amend or alter any Clause of this Bill, but it was the very question that we put to the Financial Secretary which seemed to convince me that this did involve retrospective legislation.
It is perfectly clear from the answers which the Financial Secretary has already given, and from the discussion which took place in a previous debate on this Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, that it is almost impossible, or is considered to be impossible by the Government, to alter this legislation. Therefore, if it is not possible to alter it, and if that is the argument which the Financial Secretary used to prove to us that this is not retrospective legislation, let him answer the question which I have put to him as to what will happen if we did, in fact, here and now, decide that Clause 2 shall not stand part of the Bill. What would be the situation in the Isle of Man?
11.15 p.m.
Let the Financial Secretary tell us that. Of course, it is a quite different situation when one deals with legislation superimposed by one Parliament on the legislation of another, but the comparison which the Financial Secretary drew was not true.
It is because this Bill is presented as a Measure which we cannot amend that I asked the Financial Secretary the further question: what was the nature of the agreement reached between this House and the Parliament in the Isle of Man? All the Financial Secretary said was that it was just the normal type of agreement which had been made before, and that there was nothing new about it. But it is rather a curious procedure. We have been grossly misled on this side of the House during the past 24 hours, because we had the Leader of the House announcing only a few hours ago that this Bill is a pure formality, an un-contentious Measure. He gave the impression that it was a Bill that went

through on the nod on all occasions. That is quite untrue.
There have been numerous occasions when there have been discussions, not merely in Committee but on Second Reading, and many of the most eminent Members of this House in the past 30 years have participated in these debates. Therefore, it was a shocking and monstrous thing that the Leader of the House should not merely say that it was a formality, but on that basis that he should attack some hon. Gentleman for continuing discussion at all on the Bill. Therefore, we want to know what is the reason for this Clause, and the whole Bill, if we are not allowed to discuss it, and if necessary to amend it.
We want to know what will happen to this Clause if we decide to vote against it, and whether in fact we have full authority to do that. Certainly we have every right to discuss this matter in detail, because if we look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Leader of the House said, after moving to report Progress after a discussion of an hour and a quarter:
It was part of the intention that this Bill should be reasonably debated.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I fail to see what that has to do with the Clause standing part.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I think what my hon. Friend is arguing is that we on this side of the Committee are most anxious to know, from the Leader of the House if possible, how far he considers discussion on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill is proper and reasonable.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is certainly not dealt with on the Motion that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: One of our troubles is that we debated this the night before last for less than an hour when the Closure was moved. We are fearful, and it embarrasses us considerably, that at any moment someone could cut the argument short, and we are anxious to get some assurance that that will not happen.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not in a position to deal with that. What I am concerned with is that the Committee should deal with the Motion that the Clause stand part and not with cutting the discussion short.

Mr. Hale: Clause 2 deals with the question of hydro-carbon oils, the biggest revenue producer of this particular collection. Therefore, in my submission, two matters are eminently material to this point. The first—the matter we have sought to have from the Financial Secretary because of the very limited discussion—is what effect Clause 2 has on the finances of the United Kingdom.

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with the point I raised. All I have directed the attention of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) to is that what the Leader of the House said the other night about the general discussion of this Bill is not relevant to the Question that Clause 2 stand part.

Mr. Hale: There was a second point I was about to make, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I was first of all making the preliminary point, then I was going on to submit to you that when the Leader of the House comes here and says it is improper for us to ask about this at midnight, when he called the Bill on at midnight, and when the Leader of the House—who, I am afraid, is not present tonight—suggests that there is something wrong or improper in hon. Members pursuing inquiries which appear to be materially important to the finances of the United Kingdom, then we are entitled to ask for your protection in the matter. Surely these inquiries are proper and ought to be pursued?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Bill is before the Committee; the Committee is entitled to discuss it and is discussing it. All I am asking the hon. Member to do is to keep the discussion to the Clause before the Committee at the moment.

Mr. T. Driberg: Further to that point of order. With great respect, the point at which you pulled up my hon. Friend, as a I recall it, was when he was quoting the Leader of the House as saying:
It was part of the intention that this Bill should be reasonably debated.
Surely the greater includes the less, and the Bill includes the Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Foot.

Mr. Driberg: I ask for your Ruling, with great respect.

The Deputy-Chairman: My Ruling is quite clear. That is not really a serious point of order.

Mr. Driberg: It is a perfectly serious point of order. You did not hear the end of it, if I may say so.

The Deputy-Chairman: I heard enough to make up my mind that it was not a serious point of order. Mr. Foot.

Mr. Foot: When you intervened, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and said you wished me to keep within the limits of this Clause, I had reached a comma in the quotation that I was making from the speech of the Leader of the House, and if you would permit me to read the following part of the sentence that I was quoting, I think I can show quitely clearly how I was applying that to the argument I am presenting on this Clause. He said:
It was part of the intention that this Bill should be reasonably debated, but not at great length, and certainly not at this hour of the morning.
Then he went on to say:
This is a formal Bill, it normally follows the Finance Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 484.]
The whole of my argument is this. There is apparently—and this was the whole argument presented by the Financial Secretary—a new kind of legislation presented to the House of Commons, and that is what is called formal legislation. Formal legislation is apparently, according to the definition of the Leader of the House, something which cannot be debated at any length, or something that cannot be debated in the early hours of the morning, or something—

The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever the Leader of the House said on that occasion in that regard I am not concerned with at the moment. The Bill is before the Committee; the issue before the Committee at the moment is that Clause 2 stand part, and the Committee is entitled to discuss that.

Mr. Bing: Might I just draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that it was in regard to this Clause that the Leader of the House was moving that you did report Progress. That must surely have been relevant to this Clause or you or your predecessor in the Chair would have ruled him out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: We were then discussing another Motion. The Motion before the Committee at the moment is that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, and all I am asking the hon. Member to do is to discuss that issue.

Mr. Foot: I am seeking to do exactly that, following upon the discussion that we had before, because the whole argument of the Financial Secretary, as I understood it, both on this Clause and on the previous Clause, as to the reason why he was asking the Committee to accept the Clause was that it had been approved in the Isle of Man Parliament. I am seeking to discover from him the way in which we could amend this if we wanted to. What would be the exact results if we did amend it? If it is possible for this Committee to amend it, what on earth is the reason for the Leader of the House telling not only this Committee but the whole House assembled, that this is a kind of formal Measure which cannot be scrutinised and amended in exactly the same way as any other piece of legislation which is presented to this House?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am very anxious to keep within the bounds of order, and to apply my remarks to the Question before the Committee, which is whether Clause 2 should stand part, but I think, Mr. Hopkin Morris, you would agree that in dealing with this question I must be entitled to refer to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because it was that speech on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning which produced, to the complete surprise of the Committee, the Motion to report Progress.
In considering the merits of Clause 2 it surely cannot be irrelevant just for a moment, by way of preamble to what I hope to say, just to remind you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, of the circumstances in which the Leader of the House, I think to the consternation of the Financial Secretary and of the Committee, suddenly and very abruptly cut short the remarks of the Financial Secretary.
We were embarking on a very serious consideration as to whether Clause 2 should stand part. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members had raised very

serious criticism of Clause 2, had posed questions which I want to elaborate in a moment. The Financial Secretary had attempted to give an answer, but it was so unsatisfactory that the Leader of the House at once got up and moved to report Progress. That, of course, has produced a very serious situation, because on Wednesday morning the Leader of the House obviously thought that this Committee could not possibly accept the reply which the Financial Secretary gave. There could have been no other reason for reporting Progress, except this, that the—

The Deputy-Chairman: It is certainly not in order to discuss on the Question that the Clause stand part what were the reasons for a totally different Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Fletcher: I am quite clear. What I am saying is this. On Tuesday we were putting certain criticisms to the Government, and I want to repeat and to elaborate them, and it is necessary to elaborate them for this reason, that, as they were put on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning they were apparently incomprehensible to, or, at any rate, were not understood by the Government Front Bench, so that the answer given from the Government Front Bench was so unsatisfactory that the Leader of the House thereupon interrupted the discussion and said, in effect, that we could not expect the Financial Secretary at 2 o'clock in the morning, to deal with them. I think that that is a perfectly fair summary of what happened. It is now only half past 11, and it is very desirable that we should give the Financial Secretary the opportunity on this occasion to give a clear and succinct and intelligible explanation of the problems which are of concern to the Committee.
To do the Financial Secretary justice, he is quite capable, I am sure, of understanding an argument at half past 11 at night, even though, in the opinion of the Leader of the House, he cannot understand it or deal with it at 2 o'clock in the morning, but so that there should be no possible misunderstanding, and no excuse for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury doing himself less than justice on the second occasion, I want to try to put once more, as briefly and as clearly as I can, the questions which are


troubling this side of the Committee on Clause 2.
I do not regard this as "formal" legislation. It is novel to me that there is a distinction between "formal" legislation and other legislation. I have always understood that it is not merely the right but the duty of Members of the House of Commons to scrutinize the legislation which the Government of the day bring before it, and particularly so is that the case when it is legislation which affects taxation, whether it be taxation in the United Kingdom or taxation in the Isle of Man.
It is even more important that the matter should be subjected to close scrutiny where the legislation smacks of retrospective legislation, because we have heard over and over again from those benches, and, if I may say so with great respect, from you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, about how anything that smacks of retrospective legislation is abhorred by this Committee and the House. We had an assurance on the last occasion. It was the last and final sentence we heard from the Financial Secretary before he was interrupted and the debate brought to an abrupt conclusion. He said:
I can assure the Committee that there is no element of retrospection in this Bill any more than there is in the Finance Bill and the Budget Resolution.
As soon as he uttered those words up jumped the Lord Privy Seal, the Leader of the House, to move to report Progress. Obviously, the matter could not be allowed to rest there.
11.30 p.m.
Let us look at Clause 2 and examine it in the light of what, at 2 o'clock the other morning, was obviously baffling Government spokesmen and putting them in such confusion. The Clause starts by saying
As from the eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, no heavy oils on the delivery of which for home consumption rebate has been allowed shall be used as fuel.…
Subsection (2) refers to 1st August, 1952, and subsection (4) refers to the 8th August, 1952. I quite agree that if the matter were left there, one would not know for certain if there would be retrospective legislation. But one does not know when this Bill will pass. There

is talk about sitting on August Bank Holiday, and all this must be read in conjunction with the date 18th June, 1952. This is a question on which we want clarification.
The Financial Secretary, in dealing with Clause 2, said on Tuesday night:
The Tynwald passes its resolutions expressing its wishes, and unless some very good reason affecting the United Kingdom prevents it, it has been considered for many years the proper function of this Government to present this Measure in the form of a Bill to this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 483–484.]
My first question is this: Have the resolutions of the Tynwald the force of law as they stand at the moment either in the Isle of Man or in the United Kingdom, and, if so, whence do they derive their legislative authority? Does the Act of 1911 apply to the Isle of Man, or is there a statute of the Manx Legislature or of our own which gives a similar, temporary operative effect to the Tynwald resolutions as is given to Resolutions of this House that follow immediately after the Budget?
If that is the case how does that effect the position of this House? Is this House bound by the resolutions of the Tynwald, or are we free to amend this? For what period do the resolutions of the Tynwald have any temporary effect, if they have any temporary effect at all? What, in other words, is the last day when the Committee can competently either accept Clause 2 or amend it or reject it? One of the difficulties we in this Committee are in tonight is that as a result of the complete incompetence of the Leader of the House in managing Government business, we are being driven night after night in or around midnight, and, indeed, after it, to consider these very abstruse financial and constitutional questions. Whether it is necessary or not I do not know.

Mr. Hale: What makes it more complex is that under Clause 4 (2) of this Bill reference is made to the power of the Lieut.-Governor of the Island to vary, without consulting anyone, or to repeal some of the duties to be imposed by this Bill and imposed by preceding Acts.

The Deputy-Chairman: That matter arises on Clause 4, and not on this Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: If I may respectfully say so, I agree with you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, rather than with my hon. Friend. There are some matters which I wish to raise on Clause 4, and when we come to it, I shall be very glad of his assistance; because that Clause is an elaborate one, dealing with ale, beer, and cocoa.
But this is what troubles me. We are entitled to know the view of the Government Front Bench; and may I here say that we are glad to see that the learned Attorney-General is with us, because I have no doubt that if we do get into legal and constitutional difficulties the assistance he can give will be most welcome. I feel that Members of the Committee are entitled to know, and to have a clear explanation—which we have not had—of what is the existing legal position in the island and here as a result of these resolutions. What, for example, will be the effect if the Committee, as it is entitled to do, rejects Clause 2?
That is my first series of questions. Secondly, before we pass from Clause 2 may we be told what is the real significance of this series of dates? Why 8th August in subsection (1) and 1st August in subsection (2) and then 8th August again in subsection (4)? Nothing has been said, either on this stage, or in second reading, to explain why those dates are chosen. Are they necessary, or are they arbitrarily fixed? Can the Financial Secretary explain their significance to us?

Mr. Bing: I think that anyone who has studied the accounts of the island, as some of my hon. Friends have done, will be struck by their curious incompleteness; and I hope that we shall have an indication under which heading in these accounts one will find the drawback which is the subject matter of this Clause. As I understand it, and I am sure the Financial Secretary will deal with the present arrangement of the accounts, one of the difficulties is that we are here discussing an effect at a decent interval of about six months from its cause. One is compelled to criticise the figures in this year's Finance Bill by last year's Budget, and that is not a very satisfactory method of approaching the accounts of the Isle of Man.
The first line of the Clause, as I understand, deals with the sum set out as

the product of the Isle of Man accounts. This is quite different from the common purse account and is a calculation of the notional value of the whole of the customs of the United Kingdom, and what would be the value of those items in the United Kingdom. If the drawback is levied at a different rate—I suppose that is the reason for the Clause—then presumably this is due to a figure on the second line. The first line sets out a figure of £239,608 13s. 9d. for the year before last as the total sum due in all of the Customs which are Isle of Man type Customs, that is, where there is a different rate. Presumably, against that, and taken off that, is the drawback, to which I assume this Clause refers—though I must say that the whole matter is obscure.
Here, let me say that I felt it was a correct move that you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, should report Progress on an earlier occasion, because what the Financial Secretary was saying did nothing to clear up the mystery and fog which we were all in, due, possibly, to the absence of the accounts. There is a figure for the year before last of about £37,000, which is deducted from the total sum of the Isle of Man Customs, and therefore we get for the Isle of Man type Customs—leaving aside entirely the common purse arrangement, which I shall hope to discuss later—a total figure for the year before last of £202,000.
If we are to consider whether we ought to pass this Clause or not, we ought really to know what is the figure in this account. By how much does the total drawback alter that sum? Suppose we did not pass this Clause—what would be the difference to the Revenue? I hope I am not taking the Financial Secretary by surprise, because I am asking perhaps the most obvious question that could be asked. Will the figure be greater or less than it was in the last accounts that the Isle of Man has so far seen fit to submit to the House?
These do seem practical points, and I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), that these Clauses should not be dealt with formally. There is a number of Bills, so constructed by Parliamentary draftsmen, that anything said upon them is out of order, but that is not true of this Bill; and, therefore, it is the duty of hon.


Members to try to discover what such a Measure as this means. Possibly, we need not do that this year. For instance, we gave the Army Act a good examination in the early part of the year. Next year we might spend a few days clearing up and modernising this Customs Act.

Mr. Hale: I was much impressed by what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said. It does seem that at this stage of the Session we might well limit our inquiries to a few practical points and to the eliciting of the information we need. Then we might make a fuller examination of the fiscal question of the Isle of Man at a more appropriate time next year.
I suffered a deep sense of mortification, Mr. Hopkin Morris, when you said on an earlier occasion in our consideration of this Measure that you were inclined to be bored. That may have been due to some of the preceding discussions, or to the fact that you had to rule out of order some of the more fascinating aspects of this subject, which, for my part, I was inclined to approach not only fiscally but sociologically and geographically.
I flatter myself that I have discovered some of the questions that require an answer. The curious and somewhat recondite wording of the subsection (1) of this Clause appears to tally very closely with Section (2) of the Finance Act, 1935. The dates 8th August and 1st August appear in that Act, too. Apparently for hydrocarbon oils, for some recondite reason, these are the dates selected as appropriate for preparing the computation. I do not know why. No doubt the Financial Secretary will tell us. I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for the advice that we can discuss the common purse arrangement under Clause 4. I was about to discuss that now, but in the circumstances I will not.
11.45 p.m.
I should like to know whether the Financial Secretary has been able to check on the two or three points we indicated in the earlier part of the debate. We should like to know whether the resolutions have been passed by the Tynwald and whether the Treasury letter of December, 1949, which varies the arrangement so far as the Tynwald is concerned, has now received legislative sanction in the Island. We also want to know

whether we are now on the basis of 5 per cent. payment instead of the lump sum payment which operated earlier In the accounts there appears to be a substantial provision for that eventuality.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will respond to the invitation of my hon. and learned Friend and see that the Acts of the Tynwald are available in the Library of the House of Commons. Clearly, we are entitled to them. It is important that we should have the material available. Clause 2 (6) provides that
The Commissioners may by statutory instrument make regulations for giving effect to this section, including regulations for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (5) of section two of the Finance Act. 1935 …
I am glad to see present my right hon. and learned Friend the former President of the Board of Trade and Attorney-General. I know that he will reinforce my view on this. It is rather surprising that the Commissioners themselves make instruments to enforce their own powers. They are instruments which appear to give the power to impose, pecuniary penalties. One would have thought that there would have been some provision for supervision and that this power could not be exercised administratively by the Commissioners on their own behalf.
Section 2 (5) of the Finance Act, 1935, provides powers covering:
… a person licensed under this section of owning or possessing a heavy oil vehicle … regulating the storage of heavy oils by such persons as may be so prescribed; … empowering officers of customs and excise to enter any premises occupied by a person dealing in hydrocarbon oils …
I am sure that that last power will recall to the Financial Secretary his observations made very often about snoopers in the years when we were in power. There are also powers
empowering such officers to examine any heavy oil vehicle and any goods carried thereon …
This raises the question "Who are the Commissioners who exercise these powers?"

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am anxious to help my hon. Friend, who is most knowledgeable on these matters. Perhaps he can get a reply from the Financial


Secretary on one point, that is, if the Financial Secretary knows the answer. The Commissioners are not defined in the Bill. They may not even be the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. For all I know they may be the Lunacy Commissioners. Nowhere in the Bill are they referred to otherwise than as "the Commissioners."

Mr. Hale: I am obliged. That is an essential point. The Bill seems to have been written in a somewhat haphazard manner. That is one of our difficulties. That is why the Lord Privy Seal says that we must not look at it. We can well understand that he may have looked at it himself and decided that it does not bear examination. Our duty is clear. These might be the Turf Commissioners or any other commissioners. I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Gentleman for the generous compliment he paid to me about my knowledge of the Island in view of the fact that I have never been to the Isle of Man.
Now we, come to subsection (7), which says:
If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of regulations made under this section, or obstructs, molests of hinders an officer in the execution of any powers conferred on him by any such provision.
Here, there is no mention of who the officer is. My right hon. Friend is well aware that we had an interesting discussion on the Home Guard Act about the constituting of the Home Guard in the Isle of Man. We do not yet know whether it has been constituted, but are they the officers who are to enforce this provision? They are not defined. Apparently regulations are to be made by the Commissioners, who are not defined, and one has first of all to read the regulations to find out who the commissioners are to find out what they think the officers are.
The subsection concludes:
he shall for each offence be liable to a customs penalty of one hundred pounds.
I am assuming that that money is to be paid to the revenue of Great Britain, but what I want to know is how it is applied. Are the Isle of Man authorities to get 95 per cent. of it, or how is the matter to be dealt with? It is rather

lamentable that, at a time when the whole fiscal policy arrangements between the two islands have been altered, though we have not had any information that the alterations have been confirmed, that the accounts give no indication of these matters. As I have said before they give precisely the amount of information the Tory Party accounts would provide of the amount they derived from the brewers.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I shall try to deal with the wide variety of interesting points which hon. Gentlemen have made during this debate, and perhaps I might begin with the point of definition of commissioners, raised just now by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The word is used alone in this Bill by reason of the provisions of the relevant Section of the Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Act, 1932, with which Act I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar. That Section provides:
In this Act and in any future Act relating to customs in the Isle of Man …
the expression 'the Commissioners' shall mean the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Sir Hartley Shawcross: What about officer?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to argue law with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On that I shall have to ask the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Sir H. Shawcross: This is a matter of great importance, and one on which the Attorney-General may wish to advise the Committee. I asked about "officer," a term used in the Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out, it is a matter of great importance that the public should know what "officer" refers to.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall try to get that information, but I shall not give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a snap answer on law.
If I may now pass to the resolutions on which this Bill was based, these were passed by the Tynwald on 17th June, and I will deal with the point the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch


(Mr. Bing) raised about their availability. There is no secret about them. The Tynwald sits in public, and as I understand, the only reason the texts of the resolutions was not provided on this occasion, as on other occasions in the past when similar Bills have been debated, is the simple one that no hon. Gentleman has ever asked for them. If any hon. Gentleman had asked I would have provided them.

Mr. Bing: One of the reasons why the Motion of the Lord Privy Seal to report Progress the other evening was supported by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee was that it would give time for the provisions of these resolutions. It is, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, a little hard to expect the Committee to enact legislation merely on his view that some such resolutions were passed by the Tynwald. We are entitled to have copies of the documents to compare them with the Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not put very much weight on the very small point which arises there. What I had in mind was that before the previous debates they were not placed in the Library because, frankly, they were not asked for. I hope the hon. Member will not get heated about it because I do not propose to. I know that he raised it in the early hours, but, frankly, there was not time for them to be provided. But they can be provided if there is any wish for it in the House. They can be provided in the next few days. If I can get this in before 12, for reasons which will become apparent, it will be a great pleasure to me to provide a copy to the hon. Gentleman as a birthday present.

Mr. Bing: My hon. Friends and myself did make inquiries some time ago in the Library for these things and there have been no documents from Tynwald ever since the advent of the present Government. A sudden iron curtain has descended from that day to this. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will see that the easy flow of communications between here and the Isle of Man is resumed even under the present Administration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think there is anything very much between us on this. If there is any general demand in the House either for the resolutions of

Tynwald—and I agree that as this Bill is founded on them there is a case for that—or other documents that can be provided. But I should like to see which particular documents might be wanted as I do not wish to cause an unnecessary increase of the documents hon. Members receive.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In that case, what documentary evidence has the Treasury really for the compilation of this Bill? If it never sees these resolutions does it get its information from a telephone message that reaches the Treasury that the necessary resolutions have been passed by Tynwald or have they actual copies of them, probably signed by the Clerk and duly forwarded to the Treasury here? If so, could not copies of these be deposited in the Library?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said before there is no trouble about that if it is the desire of the House. Naturally, copies of the resolutions are forwarded from the appropriate official in the Isle of Man. I would not care to guess what his title is; they have some peculiar names. But they are forwarded and are the necessary foundation for this Bill. As for the 1949 resolutions, agreement has not yet been arrived at. But discussions are at present taking place on all the topics relating to the financial position of the island and meanwhile the old position remains in force.

Mr. Hale: This was the whole substance of the argument the other night in respect of which the Lord Privy Seal said that we were pursuing something that we should not pursue. It meant an increase of the amount from something like £10,000 to something like £60,000 or £70,000. Will the Financial Secretary tell us why there has been three years' delay on that.

12 midnight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to go too much, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, into the reasons for what has been quite a long delay, but, so far as I am concerned, I am only answerable for nine months of the three years. I do not make any point about that. In fact, there have been discussions, proposals and counter-proposals going to and fro. There was an interruption by the General Election,


both in these islands and in the other island, and the discussions have not, in fact, terminated.
They are still taking place, and I do not want to say anything which would seem to cast blame on the other party to the discussions, or to make any point that either the present Government or the previous Government were dilatory. We are extremely anxious that the long drawn out matter should be brought to a conclusion, because, as I have said, the present position is far from satisfactory.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shaw-cross) asked me about "officer." "Officer" and "collector" are defined in the Heavy Oils (Road Fuel) Regulations, 1935, as Officer of Customs and Excise, and Collector of Customs and Excise respectively; and
'Proper officer' means the Officer of the station in which the premises are situate, and includes a person acting for that Officer, and also any Officer superior in matters of Customs and Excise.
Clause 2 (6) provides that they shall only come into force with the regulations and the present United Kingdom Regulations, including the one I have quoted, will continue in force, and that definition affects this Bill.
The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) asked me a number of questions with which I will deal. First of all, he raised, as he did on a previous occasion, the question of retrospection. Frankly, I think the difference arising between us really depends on what we mean by retrospection. What I mean is a provision which changes the law at a particular date, and then deems the law to have been as changed at a previous date, when it was not so in operation. In that case, these provisions are not retrospective, because the Tynwald resolutions come into effect of their own force on the date specified in them.
Therefore, although, in a sense, this is a Bill which, in abstract law, as regards this House, may indeed alter the law retrospectively, the effect upon the people affected in the Isle of Man is not retrospective at all. It is mere confirmation of the existing law. I agree that both points are perfectly arguable, but the difference really depends on the point

of view on retrospection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's view may be more precise, where mine is more administratively practicable. That really is the difference between us.
My answer to the question about the resolutions is that they come into force on the date as they are expressed, and only remain in force for six months, and there is some obscure provision of the law under which, at the end of six months, if this House is still sitting, they continue to the end of that Sitting. The authority, for which he asked me, is the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1887, and the answer is that the Gibson Bowles provisions apply.

Mr. Bing: On the point of that Act, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very peculiar provision that the Treasury may by minute declare that there is no possibility of the House acceding to the resolution? That seems to me to be somewhat out of date, and a remarkable usurpation of the rights of the House of Commons, because I cannot see how the Treasury can, by minute, decide what the House will do. As the hon. Gentleman says, the proceedings of the House on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill are very unpredictable. Has he dealt with that aspect of the 1887 Act?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The whole of the financial provisions are under discussion at the moment. There is no provision in this Bill dealing with it, and I would be out of order if I attempted to explain, but there is a certain amount in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
There is, of course, no agreement between this Government and the Government of the Isle of Man. All that has happened, as has happened over a great many years, is that when the Tynwald passes these resolutions—the constitutional position being that although they come into effect for six months, they subsequently require an Act of this Parliament to validate them—the normal attitude taken by all British Governments without exception has been then to put forward these provisions in this annual Act. There is no agreement. The Government and the House are perfectly free to alter these provisions, but as a matter of ordinary discretion and judgment it has been thought right by our predecessors over a great many years when the


representatives of the Isle of Man decide that this is what they want then we acknowledge that this is a matter for them, and we use our powers to put into effect what they wish.
The hon. Member for Devonport asked me what would be the effect if the Clause is not passed. The provision in respect to the withdrawal of rebate would not come into effect, and the wishes of Tynwald would not be met. I want to make it clear that this House has complete rights in this matter. There is no agreement, in the sense the hon. Gentleman meant, which affects the rights of the Government or the House in the slightest degree. On the other hand it is a question whether we should follow the custom of a good many years, and doing what the Isle of Man wants in what are substantially their own affairs.
I do not propose to argue for a moment that the present timing of the Bill and the accounts is satisfactory. I do not think it is, but so far as this year's Bill is concerned, we have really no option in the matter. Last year's Bill—for which I am bound to remind the Committee we were not responsible—included for the first time a provision, inserted by the late Administration on the suggestion of one of my hon. Friends, requiring that the accounts of the Island need not be rendered until the end of December.
At the same time, that Bill by Clause 2 continued the main revenue duties of the Island only until 1st August. The position left to us by last year's Bill was that it was quite unescapable that the Bill would have to be brought forward before the accounts were available. We have no option this year. That is clearly not a wholly satisfactory matter. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with certain of these points. I do not know whether it will be called, but, in any event, we are bound this year by the provisions of last year's Bill.
As regards the general position I am very ready to say that we are prepared to look at the timing of the accounts relative to the Bill in order to see if a more satisfactory arrangement can be evolved, and that will come appropriately in the discussions of the general financial problems of the Island which are taking place.
I think I have dealt with the main question of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on the legal basis

for the resolutions of Tynwald coming into effect, and their duration. That is really the position under this Clause. What we are seeking to do is at the request of the Isle of Man expressed in solemn resolution of Tynwald to withdraw the rebate on heavy diesel oils used in road vehicles. The effect is to put that part of the Island's taxation in precisely the same position as that of the United Kingdom. That is no doubt a reasonable thing to do.
I do not commend it particularly on those grounds alone, but also on the grounds that Tynwald has asked us to do so in accordance with established practice. It would be highly inconvenient to vary it this year when we are hoping to get our entangled relations with this Island in more reasonable, clearer, and more progressive form.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not desire to delay the Committee, but I think it will not come amiss if I follow, quite briefly, the speech now made by the Financial Secretary. I think he, and possibly other hon. Members on that side, will agree that the fact that we have had this discussion tonight has demonstrated that it was quite wrong that our debate the other evening should have been cut as short as it was. If I may remind the Committee, we had been debating Clause 2 for about 20 minutes: we had had one speech from this side, and a very good speech, from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), and that was followed by the speech of the Financial Secretary, in not nearly so persuasive a manner as the speech we have had from him tonight.
The hon. Gentleman spent a fair portion of it saying that we on this side had talked a great deal about retrospective legislation and that this was nothing of the kind, but tonight he admitted that there were two views on that. I will not deal with that now except to say that tonight he has given far more information on this matter than he gave the other evening. Immediately he sat down his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal jumped up and moved to report Progress. It would have been much more in keeping, I think, if tonight an hon. Member on this side had jumped up and moved that same Motion, because this Clause is tied up, partially at any rate, with the Schedule, and it


would have been a good thing if we had had the Minister of Agriculture here, or at any rate his Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps when we reach the Schedule he may appear. I do not know; that remains to be seen.
The real trouble here, of course, is that the Isle of Man is specially favoured. We on this side of the Committee are labouring under a sense of frustration, because this Bill, and this Clause in particular, deals with hydrocarbon oils, and the drawback on hydrocarbon oils used in road vehicles. It does not permit us to say what we really would like to say about the financial situation between this country and the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is in a particularly favoured position. We all know why that is, but there is no reason why the people there should not pay as much Income Tax as other people do in, say, the Isle of Wight. At any rate, that is a matter about which you, Sir Charles, would pull me up if I pursued it.
Nevertheless, we are delighted to think that negotiations are proceding, and we should like to feel that before we debate another Bill of this kind next year that, not only shall we have the information the Parliamentary Secretary has tonight promised us in the way of the resolutions in form in the Library, but also a good deal of information in other directions, and perhaps legislation, too.
I make no apology for the fact that my hon. Friends have kept the Committee longer than we had expected, and very much longer than we had hoped. We have no desire to keep the Committee up at all, but we must do our duty by the electors who sent us here. This Bill is debatable. I do not know what an informal Bill can be if this is, as the Leader of the House said it is a formal Bill. It would be wrong of us to allow that observation by the Lord Privy Seal, who should know better, to pass without comment and some protest. We do not propose to divide the Committee and we are grateful to the Financial Secretary for the explanation he has seen fit to give us on this Clause tonight.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(POWER METHYLATED SPIRITS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Bing: The reply of the Financial Secretary was so gracious and so full in all other respects that I had not the heart to get up to say he had not answered one question of some considerable importance, namely, what was the actual financial effect of this particular Clause? After all, the hon. Gentleman being the Financial Secretary, one feels always that he will have the financial figures at his fingertips. For that reason I rise just to ask him what will be the financial effect of this particular Clause—if he is permitted to speak after the mystic hour of five minutes to 12, because at an early stage of his speech he said he had to finish anything he had to say by that time, for reasons which we should all appreciate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Which the hon. and learned Member would appreciate.

Mr. Bing: Yes, for that was the moment at which the Lord Privy Seal the other night thought it was necessary to move to report Progress because the hon. Gentleman could not explain anything after that hour—and the hon. Gentleman failed to answer my question just as we passed that moment, and I ascribed that to the inability the right hon. Gentleman attributed to him. Perhaps that was the reason. I do not know. I hope not, and in that hope I would address one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman on this Clause. I do not know whether he will be able to answer them until more figures are available.
It appears that these power spirits are not entered into the accounts at all. I do not know if they are included in a different type of power spirits that are locked together in the first big total of £240,000, which are duties which are different from common purse duties. But there is no figure actually given, and it is somewhat curious, because hops appear in the accounts, and, so far as I can see, far from there being any result of the hop tax, the Isle of Man has to pay some tax, rising to £2. It is, in a sense, minus £2. These are the sorts of things that make it difficult for hon. Members to follow these


things up and to call the attention to them that they deserve.
I hope we shall not take long on this Clause, but I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give us some actual figure that must have been estimated by Tynwald when it passed the Resolution on which this change in the law is based. What is the sum which will come in as a result of the passing of this Bill? It is a very simple question, and the hon. Gentleman could answer it in three or four words, and I hope he will.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. and learned Member with any precise figure since, of course, the calculations on which this particular impost is based are not ours but those of the Isle of Man authorities, but on this Clause that is not, perhaps, as serious a difficulty as it may appear. What this Clause does is to raise the duty on imported power methylated spirits from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon. The main object of that, as the hon. and learned Member will appreciate, I think, is not particularly or specifically a revenue reason, but in order to secure that these spirits, which can be used as an alternative to petrol in motor vehicles, shall bear the same duty as is borne on petrol, otherwise there would be a disparity between the taxes with unfairness between the two. This is simply a consequential provision on the increase in the hydrocarbon oils duty generally as enacted in Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(ANNUAL DUTIES (CONTINUATION).)

Mr. I. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out "August," and to insert "November."
I think I can deal very shortly with this Amendment, because I rather fancy that this was the one to which the Financial Secretary referred when, in an excellent speech, he was winding up the debate on Clause 2 stand part. He put forward certain arguments which led me to believe that he is so much in favour of this Amendment that he will either accept it or will give such undertakings as will permit me to ask to withdraw it.
What this Amendment seeks to do is to extract the Government next year from the dilemma in which they are this year. According to the account given by the Financial Secretary, this problem is tied up with the relative dates of the Bill and the presentation of the accounts. The Financial Secretary, defending the form of one of the earlier Clauses of the Bill, which appeared to have retro-active effect, said that this is, in effect, a Finance Bill following a Budget statement, and there must, therefore, be reference back to the Budget statement just as there is when we are discussing our own Finance Bill. But the great defect about that is that we are here discussing a Finance Bill, without having heard the Budget statement, and the difficulty that we are in is that we are asked to vote changes on duties without knowing what the changes are.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer presents his Budget statement to the Committee, he not merely says, "I propose to increase the petrol tax by so much," but he immediately adds, "That will bring me in an additional revenue of so many million pounds." When he proposes to increase the allowances on Income Tax, he adds that that will cost the Treasury so much per annum. Because he says things like that we are the better able to consider whether we agree or disagree with what he is recommending.
Here we cannot do that, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are in somewhat of a difficulty over this matter. I am sure that the Financial Secretary recognises it, because he said on Clause 2 stand part—and I took it down, though I must confess I had to write very fast to get it down, but not as fast as I would have had to do had it been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—"I do not propose to argue that the timing of this Bill and the accounts is satisfactory, but so far as this Bill is concerned there is nothing we can do about it this year. We have no option in the matter." It seemed to us on this side of the Committee that if we put down this Amendment it would make it possible for us to deal with the matter more sensibly next year.
The accounts, because of the change made last year at the suggestion of one


hon. Member opposite, are due to be presented not later than 31st December. We cannot hope that they might be laid somewhat earlier than that, and we propose in this Amendment that this date should be extended for four or five months longer until November, and by then the accounts will have come along. Therefore, in next year's Bill the Financial Secretary will be able to refer to the consequences of the Bill by reference to the Budget statement.
Some people may say we ought not to worry about the Budget statement and the accounts. It has been said several times that this is an independent body and can do what it likes. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I hesitate to talk about these matters in the presence of the Attorney-General and other learned Members, but it seems to me that we ought to come down on one side of the fence or the other. If we have jurisdiction in these matters, then we ought not to pass legislation without knowing something about the effect of it; or we have no jurisdiction, in which case why have we got this Bill? This Bill is now before us, and we ought to know something about the effects of it.
I will say one last thing. It may very well be that the Financial Secretary may have one or two reservations about the Amendment. First, he may think that November is not the best month for the purpose which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and I have in mind, and also for the purpose which he has in mind.
The other reservation which he may have is that he would prefer not to commit himself firmly in this matter until the conclusion of the discussions which he tells us are in operation. Although, if he takes that view, it would have to be two years instead of one; but, if the Financial Secretary takes either view, I shall be happy to accept it. If, in other words, he says that he wants the same end as we are trying to get, but prefers a slightly different way, we shall not press the Amendment in its present form. But, in order to obtain his views, I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I support the Amendment and, in so doing, would say that my hon. Friend has presented some very technical and general arguments for it. But, what

I particularly desire to say is that I believe there is a great convenience offered to the House when it debates the Bill next year because of this proposal. The more we discuss this Bill, the more it would appear that the whole relationship between this country and the Isle of Man is most anomalous. Indeed, I would say that if one examined the relationships of different countries all over the world, one would hardly be likely to find parallel legislation going through two legislatures, each being able to offset the other without knowing the result if they did it.
That is not a very satisfactory state of things, and the Financial Secretary has accepted the fact that there are these anomalies, and that they form one of the purposes of the discussions going on at present. The result of this must not only involve a change in some of the financial relationships between the two countries, but also a change in the form of the Bill, with a clearer definition of the relationship between the two countries. It will be a great advantage if, next year, we do not have to stop half way along and say, "Well, we have to put the Bill through because it must pass before August." If we substitute November, or some later month which is perhaps more convenient, it would no doubt be acceptable; but if three or four months are allowed after we discuss the Bill next year, it would give opportunity for a fuller examination than otherwise would be possible.
When one looks down the list in this table which would be affected by the Amendment being moved, one will notice some of the questions kept open by such a postponement; and if one looks back to the debates on this Bill in previous years, one will see the kind of questions which are likely to arise. In 1932 on this subject, there was an extensive debate—

Mr. Mikardo: What time did the debate begin?

Mr. Foot: It started about six o'clock in the evening, but the fact that there was such discussion, dealing with one of the first items in the Schedule, shows what a curious statement it was which was made yesterday by the Leader of the House (Mr. Crookshank) when he said that this was formal legislation. It is a curious type of formal legislation, and we would like to know what informal legislation is. At that time there were some discussions on the subject of ale and


beer and the question of the duties borne by them in the Isle of Man. My right hon. Friend who was at that time the Member for West Houghton, had some questions on this subject. He said: "I think I am entitled to ask whether there are any breweries in the Isle of Man, or, if not, what is the source of the beer that comes into the Isle of Man."

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. Gentleman should keep that speech for the Motion that the Clause stand part, instead of on this Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Foot: It would be more appropriate at that stage. But I agree that it is certainly desirable that the Government should adopt this Amendment in some form, so that when we debate the Bill next year we may be able to put the financial arrangements between this country and the Isle of Man on the kind of clearer footing that the Financial Secretary indicated earlier.

Mr. Bing: The Financial Secretary made a rather gracious reference to myself that I misunderstood and I gave him a rather dusty answer. Let me make amends and thank him for the courtesy with which he dealt with the matter and for the politeness I failed to appreciate and did not respond to.
With regard to the Amendment, 31st December, is the date when the accounts go to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but it might be possible to have some arrangement whereby the House could have the unaudited accounts. The Tynwald must have some accounts, and if they were available to us it might be possible to debate the Bill in the period September-December.
I do not want to go back on history, but the Leader of the House thought at one time that we ought not to discuss this Bill. After examining one or two aspects of it, we see it is our duty to explore the Measure. It would be more convenient to explore it when the time-table is not so crowded. The Amendment would allow a day or so to be given to the matter at the beginning of the Session when, as everybody knows, Ministers are always looking round for Bills. One of the troubles is that, having looked around and got the Second Reading for Bills

when the House has nothing to do, they have to get them through the remaining stages when the House has a great deal to do.
How convenient, then, if there were a little Bill like this. It would provide an answer to people who say, "Here is the Gracious Speech—why have you not introduced any legislation?" Might I therefore commend this Amendment? It might be found the year after next—if the present Administration are still in office—a useful excuse and alibi, as well as a fruitful occupation for Parliament at that time of the year. It is a practical Amendment. My hon. Friends, I understand, do not wish to press it, but it is down for an exploratory purpose, and I hope the Financial Secretary will respond to the invitation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will not mind if I express the hope that the Financial Secretary will not give in to the blandishments of my hon. Friends and accept this Amendment. I know that ordinarily any Amendments to which they put their names are well worthy of consideration. I do not doubt that this suggestion should be considered, but I wanted to say, in case the Financial Secretary was overcome by their persuasiveness, that I think that he should not accept the Amendment.
We have in office a Conservative Government. It is obvious from what has happened up to now that we are in for a further considerable amount of muddle, waste and mismanagement. It may well be that when the next Budget is opened, and the Finance Bill is printed, there will have to be increases in taxation, especially in the field of Customs. If that is so, and this date is altered to November, the Isle of Man might be put in a specially favoured position. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) reminds me, they are now so favoured.
They are entitled to all the amenities which citizens of this country receive. We help to defend them, and the amount spent on defence is enormous. It would be unfair if we altered this Bill and gave them possibly a rebate for a period of the year. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong when


I say that if we did alter the date they would not pay, in this direction, the same rate of tax as ourselves.

Mr. Hale: Unless and until the new agreement is ratified by the Tynwald it will not make one penny difference. This Amendment would have the great advantage that we should have the accounts for the year before the Bill is considered again.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: True. I realise what my hon. Friends wish to do, but there are dangers. The Isle of Man is now in a specially favoured position. Some people from my hon. Friend's constituency who previously used to come to live in mine are now retiring I understand to the Isle of Man because Income Tax there is lower than it is here.
If the Financial Secretary accepts this Amendment it will be doing a disservice to the country and taking a step about which the Committee ought to hesitate long.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have to direct my argument in two directions—to those who support the Amendment and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). As the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) said, I made a passing reference to this Amendment in my speech on a previous Clause. I have a good deal of sympathy with its obvious purpose, which is to try to get the timing of the accounts and the Bill more convenient for the Committee. There is great force in that.
Indeed, that is one of the aspects of the matter which we intend to look into in the course of the negotiations which I have mentioned. But the real objection to this proposal as it stands is that Tynwald by its resolution has asked for the Clause 4 dates to be continued until 1st August, 1953. I do not want to go over the ground again. It is ultimately within the authority of the House of Commons to disregard that, but I cannot imagine a more inconvenient and tactless moment at which to override the wishes of Tynwald, and impose the dates for a longer period than is asked for, than the time when we are entering into negotiations to discuss these very matters which, as all hon. Members who have spoken have

said, are in a far from satisfactory position. It would be a most inappropriate atmosphere for the negotiations to be carried on.

Mr. Bing: Supposing that in June the Tynwald passed their financial resolutions if we put November into the Bill, then next June, if they so desire, the Tynwald can alter the resolution to vary the tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that constitutionally they may be able to do so, but it would create a most unfortunate tangle if we forced them to do it. The negotiations are an attempt to get not co-operation in working a difficult system, but a system which will work much more easily. It is our desire to get the timing of the accounts and the Bill much closer together, and it may well be that the timing of the accounts might be adjusted, but until I have examined it I cannot say and do not want to be dogmatic. I cannot accept the Amendment for this year, but I give the assurance that the question of timing will be dealt with. It may well be that that will be a feature of the discussions. But, so far as we are concerned, it is our wish that everything should be made as convenient as possible. The hon. Member for Reading, South has indicated that that argument might have some force, and I hone he not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: The Financial Secretary has managed with one blow to deal with both opponents, because his arguments answered the points made by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and I am very happy to accede to his invitation and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank) rose—

Mr. Hale: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to intervene. We are quite near the end, and I think I can deal with a matter of some substance in a few sentences. The Financial Secretary has been very accommodating, and we are anxious not to embarrass him; what I have to say on this Clause


will be a complete answer to the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman the other night. The history of the collection of this tax is that up to the war of 1914–18 it was found by a number of people who studied this matter in the Library that the Isle of Man paid to the Exchequer £10,000 a year. That was when the National Debt was about £8,000 million. As a result of that, negotiations were commenced and the Isle of Man made itself voluntarily responsible for the repayment of £250,000 of War Debt. That was not a small but substantial contribution.
Later, when the matter was again raised by negotiation they made themselves responsible for the further repayment of £500,000. As a result of the labours of a few people in the Library looking into this fiscal system the National Exchequer gained by £700,000. We have had another war, and the National Debt now totals about £25,000 million, a fantastic sum, yet the annual sum payable by the Isle of Man is still £10,000.
Negotiations are now going on, and it is suggested that they should pay 5 per cent. of the common pool. But they have been going on for three years, and we hope they soon come to a conclusion. These are not small matters. We maintain the cost of collection of the taxes, the cost of the defence of the island, and that ought to be conveyed to the Tynwald very forcibly. These are substantial services as a result of which they are able to give the inhabitants of that island specialised advantages—Income Tax of from 2s. 6d. to 3s. in the £ until 1948, when it was contemplated to raise it to 4s.
These are exceptionally important matters which it is our duty to raise. It is our duty to raise them. The time has come when the attention of the islanders should be called to the fact that we do bear a very heavy burden in relation to the defence of the island. Of course, their population has not increased greatly and they may have special representations to make. But we do feel that this is an opportunity of calling the attention of the island to the need for a reconsideration of the fiscal arrangements of the island.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: There are other reasons beyond those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) why we should just give a moment or two to Clause 4. I am sorry that the last of the four Amendments on the Order Paper for amending the Clause was not called, but I can quite understand that that was at the exercise of your discretion, Sir Charles.
I want to draw attention to the very curious effect of the second half of the Clause, because as it stands this is the effect of continuing in force certain powers which are given by the Acts set out in the table to the Governor. As I understand it, under the Customs legislation of the Isle of Man some of these Acts give the Governor power to make orders varying or repealing Customs Duties and also give him power to impose new duties on goods.
It is an entirely novel conception for us that Parliament should give the executive power to impose new duties, and the effect of continuing the operation of subsection (2) is that in all the Acts which confer these powers on the Governor this executive power can be continued for another year. I hope when the Financial Secretary comes to reply he will he able to tell us that one of the matters which will be engaging the attention of himself and the representatives of the Isle of Man in connection with these financial arrangements is whether it is reasonable, whether it is desired in the Isle of Man—I am quite sure it is not desired here—that there should be this quite anomalous power given to a non-elected Governor to impose completely new Customs duties. It is true that they are limited in operation to a year.
I hope the Financial Secretary will agree with me that in the new arrangements which are being worked out with the Isle of Man it will be realised by their representatives that in these days it is quite anomalous, quite contrary to all democratic conceptions, that the Governor of the Isle of Man should have the sole and uncontrolled right to impose new Customs duties. When I read this it struck me with surprise that the right existed, but it strikes me with even greater surprise that the Government should ask the House to continue in


operation a very curious and undemocratic regulation of this kind.
This seems to me to be another of the quite out of date and obsolete regulations which, I suppose, have been inherited for several decades, and I feel that in this debate, which the Lord Privy Seal thought was inopportune and so contrary to all precedent, this is another, and by no means the least important, of the matters which could quite fruitfully be amended and put on a modern basis in the new arrangements that are being worked out.

Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have made considerable progress this evening, and I said the other night that I did not intend, as far as I was concerned, to ask the Committee to sit unreasonably late. Now, as the time is getting on, and it is ten minutes to one o'clock, and hon. Members keep rising, I thought it would be as well if we could break off the discussion, and put this Bill down as the first Order for tomorrow.

Mr. Foot: I want to say a few words in support of this Motion. I only hope that, having moved to report Progress, and if he is supported by my hon. Friends, it is not going to be followed up by the Leader of the House coming to the House tomorrow and making a declaration that hon. Members kept the Committee sitting late in a manner in which they had no right to act. I hope he will not follow the Motion to report Progress which he has made tonight with the kind of statement which he made following the previous occasion. Perhaps the Leader of the House has shown a different temper on the matter this evening, and perhaps it is because he has had the opportunity of discovering that what he told the House yesterday, when he made his statement after Questions, was not the case. He said this was—

The Chairman: On the Motion to report Progress, we can only discuss reporting Progress, and cannot enter into a discussion of what happened yesterday or may happen tomorrow.

Mr. Foot: Speaking for myself, I am prepared to support the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman on the condition that he will not follow it up by

the kind of action he took on the previous occasion.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I should like to support the Motion which the Leader of the House has made, and I do so not entirely for the reasons which he gave, but because I think the Committee will realise that this is a far more important Bill than the Leader of the House was prepared to agree on Tuesday night. The further we go into our examination of it, the more it appears to be worthy of the consideration of hon. Members and of the Government.
There is one point I should like to put to the Leader of the House. I understand that he has suggested that we should report Progress, and that this Bill should be the first Order for tomorrow. I am wondering whether that is a really convenient course to adopt.

Mr. Bing: Yes, it is.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will be able to give his own reasons why he thinks it is, but I am wondering whether it will be convenient to all those hon. Members who were told by the Leader of the House today what tomorrow's business will be. While it may be convenient to my hon. and learned Friend and to those taking part in the discussion tonight, I wonder whether we have not a duty to have some regard to the interests of other hon. Members.
Surely it will be very difficult for hon. Members who have not been here tonight and who attend at 11 o'clock tomorrow, when they find that the business announced by the Leader of the House has been changed, and that for an hour or two, or may be two or three hours, we may be engaged in our discussions on this Bill? I hope, therefore, that if the Leader of the House intends to persevere with his intention of resuming the Bill as first Order tomorrow, he will take the appropriate steps to see that all hon. Members are informed of that intention.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the right hon. Gentleman has done a wise and reasonable thing in moving this Motion. I hope he will not feel aggrieved that we have carried this debate on tonight. For obviously very good reasons he was not able to be in his place, but the Financial Secretary will tell him that we have had


a very useful debate and have covered matters which should be covered. The mere fact that this Bill frequently goes through more or less formally is all the more reason we should look at it in greater detail now and again, and for the reasons given by my hon. Friends, all have gone to show that it was time we really examined this Bill in more detail. Therefore, I make no apology.
I know it is close to the end of the Session, and the right hon. Gentleman has had perhaps a very gruelling time, but he has brought some of it on himself. As I said earlier on Clause 2, we had only been discussing it about 20 minutes, and had had only one speaker from this side followed by the Financial Secretary when the Lord Privy Seal moved that we report Progress. I ask him to remember his own days in Opposition and how he personally, as well as his friends, would have reacted if someone had treated them in that scurvy fashion.
Tonight we have had a more reasonable debate and have been accorded what we ought to have had from the beginning, that is a more reasonable time in which to discuss these important matters which ought to be looked at from time to time, if not necessarily every year. The bulk of my hon. Friends are delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Motion, and we shall accept it. If any of his hon. Friends object and would like to go on speaking I can assure him of our support in the Lobby.

Mr. Bing: Those of us on this side who have taken part in the discussion on this Bill appreciate the attitude of the Financial Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope my hon. Friends will not cavil at whatever particular time the right hon. Gentleman arranges further discussion of this Bill. It is, after all, the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and I am sure that we will all be there to deal with it. I thank both him and the Financial Secretary for the very courteous way they have treated the Committee tonight.

Mr. George Wigg: I should like to support what has been said. It is a very wise step the Leader of the House has taken. Perhaps during the weeks that lie ahead he will pay more attention to his job as Leader of the House, because it is his duty to be here

when the Committee or House is sitting. He does not set us a very good example.

The Chairman: I do not think that that arises on this Motion.

Mr. Wigg: I am addressing myself to the point that if the Leader of the House had agreed we could have disposed of the Bill in another ten minutes, and for reasons which I do not understand, but of which I approve, we shall continue our deliberations tomorrow.
It may well be that on this Motion I will not be going too wide if I say that if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in difficulty and has to make inroads into tomorrow's business it is surely due to the way he has led the House. The way to get Government business through is to treat the House and Committee with respect. If the Leader of the House had been in for our debates he would have had an example in the Financial Secretary. He treated the Committee with great courtesy and patience and, may I add, with great wisdom. If the Leader of the House had only stayed away another ten minutes we would have had only the ordinary Orders for tomorrow, but that is his affair; he has chosen another course.
I hope that during the 14 weeks' Recess he will study the example of other Leaders of the House and realise that his job is to lead, and certainly to be in the House when the House is sitting. If he did that he would begin to get the feel of the House of Commons, which he clearly has not got at the moment.

1.0 a.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking as an Opposition Whip when he informs us that this business can be concluded in ten minutes, and will that be the case tomorrow morning?

Mr. Hale: I only want to make one comment. I do not think it is fair to the Leader of the House to say that the business could have been concluded in ten minutes. There is an exceedingly important Amendment to be called which will be the subject of some discussion, and I think that the Leader of the House took the right course.
I should first like to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for the courteous and informative manner


in which he treated the Committee tonight, which fully justified the debate. Secondly, I wish to express my thanks to the Leader of the House for his somewhat tardy recognition that this should be the first Order of the Day. I am very grateful, and in the circumstances am prepared to let bygones be bygones.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — FILM QUOTA DEFAULTERS (PROSECUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I propose to raise the subject of the prosecution of film quota defaulters. I am not sure whether this applies to the Isle of Man, but certainly it is an important issue in this island. I would preface my remarks by a number of assertions which I believe should command general agreement, but which I have no time to argue at the moment.
In the first place, in my belief every intelligent citizen in this country wants to see a healthy film industry producing and exhibiting British films of a high artistic and entertainment value. That is important not merely at home but abroad, because the President of the Board of Trade recently said that in 1950 the export of British films earned £2¼ million for this country.
Secondly, every intelligent citizen knows that we have got to reduce dollar expenditure to a minimum. The American films which are imported cost annually between £8 million and £9 million in dollars. We know that that sum has got to be kept to a minimum, and very shortly the Government will have to enter into negotiations about the future of that dollar expenditure.
Thirdly, ever since 1937 every Parliament has agreed that the quota is one way of encouraging British film production. The 1948 Cinematograph Film Act went through this House without a single Division. I believe that if we have a quota, which should be a realistic quota, it ought to be observed, and it is the

Minister's job to promote the production of British films and to fix a realistic quota and see that the quota for British films, the guaranteed market, is maintained.
There is a glaring contrast since the passage of the 1948 Act between the number of defaulters and the number of prosecutions of defaulters. In the last three quota years there have been over 10,000 defaults on the two quotas, for the first feature films and for the supporting programme film. I know that the number of first feature defaults last year declined to 771, but it was still a substantial figure. On the other hand, the number of defaults on the supporting programme rose to over 2,300 in the quota year 1950–51.
Against this global total of defaults there have been during these three years fewer than 50 prosecutions of defaulters. In addition to those prosecutions, I know, a number of defaulting exhibitors have been warned about the fact that they have failed to fulfil the quota, but there is certainly a very glaring contrast between the 10,000 defaults in three quota years, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, less than 50 prosecutions by the President of the Board of Trade to attempt to enforce the quota against defaulting exhibitors.
I appreciate that there is hysteria in some quarters, and that it has been suggested that all defaulters are lawbreakers—or because it is thought it has been suggested that they are all lawbreakers. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and I have raised a storm about our heads as a result of some of the Questions we have put in the House in recent weeks; but I have never suggested that all defaulters are lawbreakers. We know that there is a Section of the Act—Section 13—whereby, if a defaulter can show that it was commercially impracticable to fulfil the quota, he can get relief. But the onus of proof is on the exhibitor to show that it was impracticable, because of the non-availability of British films, and so on.
One of the things we ought to know more about in this House is how many reliefs have been granted—how many certificates under Section 13 of the Act have been granted—and in how many of those thousands of cases exhibitors have been able to show that it was commercially impracticable for them to fulfil


the quota. It is obviously grossly unfair to those patriotic exhibitors who make efforts to fulfil the British quota that others should be able to escape from their obligations without justification, and, may be, make an extra profit; and, therefore, in fairness to the exhibitors themselves it is very important that we should have full information about the number of real defaulters that there have been, and the numbers who have managed to prove to the satisfaction of the President of the Board of Trade the commercial impracticability of fulfilling the quota, so that we can set that against the supply from the production of British films.
We have raised a number of Questions about the role of the Films Council in this matter, and I think that this is something which is very important. There is this Films Council which is representative of all sections of the film industry, one of whose responsibilities is to advise the President of the Board of Trade about defaults and about prosecutions, as well as that other vital responsibility of advising on the quota itself and upon the state of production.
In fact, it is an obligation on the President to consult the Films Council about this question of defaults on the quota and the reliefs which he ought to grant and the number of actions which he ought to take, and, therefore, the first question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, why this machinery for the consideration of defaults is so slow moving. Nine months after the end of the 1951 quota year only 105 of the 771 cases of first feature defaults had been considered, and advice on them given to the right hon. Gentleman. At that rate of progress it will take the Films Council more than five years to consider the first feature quota defaults for the year 1951 only.
That is obviously an absurd situation, and we want to know where the responsibility lies for this failure to establish machinery for rapid consideration of those defaults on the quota, and to offer advice to the President as to what action he should take in order to maintain the quota, and to see that it is properly observed. That is the first point—the slow moving machinery, which may be the responsibility either of the President or of the Films Council, for the consideration of defaults.
The second thing is the part played by interested parties on the Films Council. The President of the Board of Trade has made a number of statements about this, but my information is that interested parties have taken part in the discussions on the Films Council and on the default committee of the Films Council about defaults on their own circuits. I make no personal imputation against members of the Films Council, because it seems clear that they have received no directive on this subject, and it is obviously unsatisfactory that directors or others associated with circuits or cinemas that have defaulted should take part in the defaults committee of the Films Council, particularly when the committee is discussing their own cases.
The President of the Board of Trade ought to give a clear directive to the Council on this matter if justice is to be seen to be done and there is not to be an impression that in fact, the recommendations made to the President of the Board of Trade are biased by the special pleading of interested parties on the Films Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aston some months ago raised the question of the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, and the reason why this cinema, which showed only one British film for the whole of the quota year, 1950–51, was not to be prosecuted for its default. It appears that those responsible for the conduct of the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, have successfully argued that, because they were in this year putting on expensive stage shows which made it financially difficult for them to pay also for the hire of British films, they should not be prosecuted. That recommendation was made to the President of the Board of Trade at the same time as interested parties associated with the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, were on the Films Council.
An explanation is required from the President of the Board of Trade about this particular case which has been given considerable publicity, because clearly the impression is spread abroad that this recommendation is biased, and there is no real reason why this cinema should not be prosecuted for a notorious default. The putting on of stage shows, no matter how admirable they might be, has nothing to do with the fulfilment of the


quota to encourage the British film industry, and, therefore, we need to know something further from the President of the Board of Trade if we are to be satisfied that the Minister has considered this case properly.
There are two points which I want to put to the Minister. First, could he speed up consideration of the defaults by the Films Council and get the information as to how many reliefs have been granted, and why it was commercially impractical for so many cinemas not to fulfil the quota? Secondly, could we have an assurance that the Minister will establish that he only gets disinterested and objective advice from the Films Council in their recommendations?
It may be that the quota is too high, and that, in fact, is an argument which is being put forward by some quarters, and hon. Members received information about only today in the post. If that is so in my opinion a thorough-going inquiry into the state of the film production in this country should be made. If we have reached the situation where we have to depend on more than 70 per cent. of foreign films there should be an urgent and immediate inquiry into the present state of film production. But if the Minister fixes a quota it must be taken to be a realistic quota, and if there is such a quota he ought to take action to see that it is observed.
Nobody who has examined these facts can be satisfied with the action that is being taken at the moment, and I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to say something to show that he is aware of the situation and that he is doing something to remedy the defects.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. T. O'Brien: The most charitable thing that I can say is that I assume that the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), and the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) earlier, are based upon a mistaken appreciation of the facts. I would hesitate to say that they are representing a malicious vested interest in this matter, but anyone who knows the facts of the film industry in all its aspects—production, distribution,

exhibition, and so forth, could not possibly have put Questions to a Minister of the Crown in the form which my two hon. Friends have put them in the last few weeks.
I believe that they have been advised by malicious sources, and I here use the word "malicious" in its proper and objective sense. The temptation of hon. Members to go in for discussion on subjects about which they are ill-informed is, unfortunately, general, and something from which we all have to suffer. I have resisted the temptation to speak in the House on subjects upon which I am ill-informed. We are talking now of a very complicated industry, and the worst thing my hon. Friend could have done is to have chosen the Adjournment for this subject. Obviously, we cannot, in the half-hour at our disposal, deal with such a question as this, and I hope that the Government, in the next Session of Parliament will find time to have at least a reasonable opportunity of debating again the subject of the British film industry. I advise the right hon. Gentleman opposite to recommend the Government that some time should be so given, because we should then have the opportunity to remove these bad suspicions and misrepresentations.
First, we are concerned with the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square. The chairman of the directors of the company is a very distinguished American, and a very distinguished Briton, Mr. Sam Eckman. He has been in this country for 25 years, and he has a very creditable record behind him. He has assisted H.M. Government in the past, and he has assisted the Services during and since the war. His name and reputation are known in the Admiralty, and through it, the Royal Navy, and in the Army and the Royal Air Force, the world over. For my hon. Friend to try to besmirch the company which he represents is a very shocking thing indeed.

Mr. Swingler: It is no attempt on my part, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) to besmirch Mr. Eckman, or anybody else; but there still remains the question: "Has the Empire Cinema fulfilled the quota in the past two years, and did an interested party decide whether or not some action should be taken?"

Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that later. I appeal again to the President of the Board of Trade to try to persuade the Government to find time, next Session, to enable this matter to be discussed at greater length than is possible tonight on the Motion for the Adjournment.
In passing, I want to say that there is no man I know of in the film industry who has been so pro-British and who has so much devoted his time and means to promoting the cause of Britain as the chairman of the directors of that cinema. I am making the point to show that he would not, under any circumstances, default against the law of this country. Personally—I am not committing my organisation or anybody—I would rather the Empire, Leicester Square, defaulted on quota every year for the next 10 or 20 years, if they could continue to produce a stage show that would give employment to 30 to 40 of our British artistes and actors, about 50 to 60 musicians, and 30 to 40 stage technicians, in preference to showing one British picture. They have spent £7,000 a week—I am speaking as a trade union leader—in giving employment to about 150 persons altogether, and the fact that they have not shown one British picture has not been derogatory or detrimental to the British film production industry in the least.
This attack on the Empire, Leicester Square, is nothing but a Communist-influenced attack on an American company, designed and calculated to promote the Communist Party's attack on America. I say that with all the knowledge of the facts. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston has been influenced in this matter. What do we find? We find the stage show is finished, and actors, actresses, musicians, and my own members, the stage technicians, are out of work, all because of what is called a theoretical compliance with quota. That, of course, is not an excuse. But the facts are not known. I cannot go into it; we have not time.
Now we come to the Films Council. The fault of the Council is not within itself; the fault is an Act passed by my own party then in power. I object—I am a member of the Films Council—to two members of the House stating that the Films Council was a body of conspirators to break the law. I am next

week addressing to you, Sir, a Question as to whether the Privilege of this House has not been infringed by the suggestion that two Members, who are members of the Films Council, are being parties to a statutory body which has been engaged in a conspiracy to break the law. But that is another matter; I shall develop that next week and perhaps later.
The cinema exhibitors of this country have complied with the quota in an exemplary way. The great producer, Mr. Anthony Asquith, who is completely a nit-wit as far as politics is concerned, who takes no part in the affairs of the trade union movement—who takes no part at all in the affairs of his own union—besmirched the exhibitors of this country, to the extent of 2,100, as breaking the law. The exhibitors of this country comply with quota to the extent of 28 per cent., yet he gave the impression that 2,000 exhibitors were defaulting in quota to the extent of 100 per cent.
This is a subject which is not quite suitable for an Adjournment debate. I appeal to the Minister to find time for another discussion. I do not want to be charged with trying to take up the whole time or with being discourteous to the President of the Board of Trade. I conclude by saying that this whole matter is based on a complete misunderstanding and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
The cinema industry of this country is a patriotic industry striving against great odds, and I hope that hon. Members will acquit themselves in future with a greater sense of responsibility in raising matters on which they are ill-informed and ill-briefed.

1.26 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft): In the rather limited time at my disposal I would say, first, that I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) that the best thing that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has done in this matter is to raise it on the Adjournment where it is easier to deal with than it is in Question and answer.
He has made a general attack upon the administration of the law dealing with this subject. I would say to him that, if he looks at the position as a whole.


I do not think that it is anything like as unsatisfactory as he suggests. I have not time to deal with all the points. But the basic quota last year for first feature films was 30 per cent. When we allow for the fact that certain cinemas are allowed by the Board of Trade under the Act itself to show fewer films, the average prescribed quota was 25.6 per cent. In fact, 28 per cent. was achieved.
In those circumstances, considering the overall position, the general purpose of this Act, which was passed by the previous Administration, is being carried out. That is the first point. The second point is that there has been a general assumption spread about that if in fact a cinema fails to fulfil its quota that in itself means that it is in some way a criminal in this matter. That is not what the Act provides.
It provides a very wide series of defences, including whether the matter is within their control; how many films were available; the character of the films; whether they were of excessive cost; and whether the whole business of showing those films was in fact commercially practical. Those defences are open to anyone who is charged.
If I might illustrate the problem of a prosecution under this Act, I would take the last year when quota defaults were the basis of prosecution, which was the year 1948–49. In that year, which was under the previous Government, only 39 prosecutions were launched and they were the distilled essence of no fewer than 1,474 defaults on first features and 1,381 on second features. That is, out of 2,855 only 39 cases were launched. Only 39 cases could be got on their legs at all. In only 25 of those cases was a conviction secured, 18 of them on a plea of guilty. Only in seven cases in the whole of the history of the Act has a conviction on a plea of not guilty been secured. In one of those it was quashed on appeal.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme ought to look back on the history of the Act, administered perfectly properly, by his own Government at that

time, before he launches into this rather wild assault on the present administration of the Act or the actions of the various exhibitors.
The other thing I would endorse is that of the action of the Films Council, mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West. I am extremely indebted to that Council for its advice and assistance. It contains among its members two hon. Members of this House, both of them from the party opposite, and includes four producers, two renters, five exhibitors and four representatives of employees. There are also seven independent members. In those circumstances, it will be seen that the exhibitors are not in the majority, but in no circumstances whatever would it be possible to get useful advice from the Council without having some exhibitors on it to understand the various technicalities and difficulties connected with the subject.
On the question of the Empire Theatre, Leicester Square, I think I need not add very much to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, North-West said. Clearly in all these matters reasonably minded people can take two different views. After taking into account the advice given by the Films Council, I am of the opinion that in that case a prosecution was not justified. It was a very special case as the hon. Gentleman has said with special features. It was not a biased opinion but was the fairest judgment I could make in the circumstances. I have looked at other cases, and am looking at them. Where I think prosecutions will succeed, I propose to start them. These cases will be decided in accordance with the law as laid down and on their facts by independent courts of justice. I would ask the House to await the results of these prosecutions to see that this Act can be carried into effect in the proper manner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m.